1920-05-12

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of the Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Acting Prime Minister) it was resolved that when the House adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Friday, the fourteenth instant.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Michael Steele presented the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
Return tabled.
Return showing the institutions under the jurisdiction and management of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the number of patients and employees of each institution and the cost.- Mr. Hugh Clark (Parliamentary Secretary.)

Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways):: I lay on the Table three copies of the fifth annual report of the Canadian Northern Railway system and the annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Other copies are being printed and probably to-morrow, or next day, one will be mailed to each member of the House. If further copies are required they will be available at the department.



WATER CARRIAGE OF GOODS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Water Carriage of Goods Act.
Mr. H. H, STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): I wish the order to be dropped.
Order dropped.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions to be answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
["1.\tNo.\n2.\t$175.\n3.\tNo.\n4 and 5. On representations of Contractor Houle that $125 per annum-his rate of payment-was so low as to involve him in financial loss in operating the service, and $175 being considered a fair price for this\nservice, a new contract was arranged with him at that rate from the 1st January, 1920.\nThi6 contract was, at the request of the contractor, subsequently transferred on the same terms and conditions to another party on the ls't May, 1920."]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: This question
has already been answered.



[Stage Direction]
*Mr. CASG.RAIN:
1.	Is It true that the salary of the messengers and other attendants of the House of Commons has 'been increased to $4 per diem from the 1st of April, 1919?
2.	Is it true that the salary of the male stenographers on the members' stenographers' staff is $3.50 per diem?
3.	If so, what is the reason for this difference?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to increase the salary of the stenographers on the members' stenographers staff this session?
5.	If so, to what extent? If not, why?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From $3.25 to $3.50 per day.
3.	The rate of pay has been regulated by the amount paid for similar work in commercial and business establishments.
4.	A proposal to effect a further increase in the maximum daily allowance to both female and male stenographers, has been under consideration and it is expected an announcement in this connection will be made in the near future.
5.	Answered by number 4.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTAB LISHMENT.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Did any of the officials of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment travel to Europe at the public expense during the years 1919 and 1920?
2.	If so, what are their names and what positions do or did they occupy?
3.	What was the reason for these trips?
4.	What expenses for travelling and entertainment were charged to the department in each case?


Mr. HUGH CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) It having been reported to the department that successful methods in the retraining of disabled soldiers had been adopted in England the introduction of which was being advocated in Canada, W. E. Segsworth, previously Director of Vocational Training and T. A. Stevenson, Assistant Director Information and Service Branch (who also represents the Trades and Labour Council of Canada with regard to the industrial retraining of ex-members of the Forces) were sent to England in April 1919, their instructions being to investigate the methods of industrial retraining applied in England; the relationship between organized labour and the Governmental agencies conducting such retraining, and the relationship between organized labour and ex-members of the Forces undergoing such retraining, particularly with respect to the permanent reabsorption of trainees into commercial or industrial life as civilians.
Mr. Segsworth was also appointed to proceed as the representative of the department to the Inter-Allied Conference at Rome which was convened for the purpose of discussing the problem of the rehabilitation of disabled soldiers. It was considered that advantage might be taken of methods which had proven successful in other countries. It was also the desire of those responsible for the conference that definite records of the work conducted by the department in Canada be made available to representatives of other countries confronted with similar problems.
The expenses of Messrs. Segsworth and Stevenson amounted to $3,603.36.
(b) For the purpose of negotiating arrangements whereby former members of the Imperial Forces resident in Canada (numbering about 50,000) would receive at the expense of the Imperial Government post war benefits administered by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and whereby ex-members of the Canadian Forces resident in the United Kingdom (numbering about 20,000) would receive at the expense of the Canadian Government post war benefits made available in England by the Imperial .Government, E. H. Scammell, Assistant Deputy Minister, was instructed to proceed to England in May 1919. As a result of the arrangements he made ex-mem-

bers of the Forces in both countries now obtain benefits with greater convenience than would otherwise have been the case, and considerable savings have been effected in administrative expenses.
The expenses of Mir. E. H. Scammell amounted to $1,148.51.
(c) It having been represented to the department that owing to the heavy demands on the British Government in providing artificial limbs, orthopaedic boots and other orthopaedic appliances for former members of the Imperial Forces, discharged Canadian soldiers resident in the United Kingdom were not being furnished with such appliances as rapidly as might be desired, F. G. Robinson, Deputy Minister and R. W. Coult-hard, Director of Orthopaedic and Surgical Appliances, were sent to England in January, 1920, for the purpose of investigating the desirability of operating in England a Branch Orthopaedic Fitting Depot, similar to thosie operated by the department throughout Canada for the issue of artificial limbs, orthopaedic boots and other orthopaedic appliances. They were also instructed thoroughly to investigate the methods adapted by the British and French Governments in connection with the supply and maintenance of artificial limbs and the design thereof, so that advantage might be taken in Canada of any improved methods or designs not previously applied here.
The deputy minister was also instructed to negotiate with officials of the British Government certain adjustments relative to the administration of benefits to ex-members of the Forces by the British and Canadian Governments reciprocally, the desirability of which had arisen, as the work developed out of experience in applying under constantly varying conditions the general principles previously agreed upon. Mr. Robinson was further instructed to arrange with officials of the British Government the rates at which the Canadian Government would be reimbursed by the British Government for services rendered by the depaitment on their behalf to ex-members of the Imperial Forces resident in Canada; 'and to investigate the conditions under which ex-members of the Canadian Forces, resident in the United Kingdom, who have been disabled by war service, were receiving benefits through the British Government, and to make any necessary recommendations in this respect.
The expenses of Mr. F. G. Robinson and Major Coultbard amounted to $3,371.71.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CAR HAULAGE COST.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: How much does it cost per mile to haul a car on the Canadian National railways?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will appreciate that it would be very difficult to answer this question, for he anight know that it would cost a great deal more to haul a car containing 50 or 60 tons of freight than if it were empty. It is a question that I cannot answer in its present form.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How about private
cars?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.


MR. F. YOUNG.
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is F. Young receiving the annual salary of $6,000 from the Canada Wheat Board?
2.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said F. Young is receiving in addition to the above salary an annual salary of $10,000 from the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association?
3.	Are expenditures by the Canada Wheat Board audited by any Government official, or does the said board submit a duly audited detail statement of revenue and expenditure?
4.	What sums of public money have been expended in behalf of the Canada Wheat Board?


George Green Foster: 1 and 2. The department has no information. The board appoints .and pays its own working staff. *
3.	The expenditures of the board are subject to audit by an independent audit company, and they will submit a full statement of their work on its completion.
4.	No public moneys have been expended on behalf of the Canada Wheat Board. All costs and charges are defrayed from proceeds of sale, in the hands of the board.


Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	Has Mr. Joseph Houle still got the contract as rural mail carrier between Pontbriand and Robertsonville?
2.	What was the contract price?
3.	Was the contract awarded after tenders had been called?
4.	Has the contract price been raised in favour of Mr. Houle?
5.	If so, when, and for what amount?


Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	No.
2.	$175.
3.	No.
4 and 5. On representations of Contractor Houle that $125 per annum-his rate of payment-was so low as to involve him in financial loss in operating the service, and $175 being considered a fair price for this
service, a new contract was arranged with him at that rate from the 1st January, 1920.
Thi6 contract was, at the request of the contractor, subsequently transferred on the same terms and conditions to another party on the ls't May, 1920.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. McCURDY:: 1.	Have the Government operations at the Dog Fish Reductions Works at Clark's Harbour, Nova Scotia, been discontinued?
2.	If so, what disposition has been made of the property?
Mr. ROS'S:
1.	What sales of military and other supplies have been made by the War Purchasing Commission in each of the years 1917, 1918 and 1919, and what amount of money was obtained for these supplies in each of the above years?
2.	Were these supplies sold by tender, by advertisement, or at public auction?
3.	How were military supplies, including rugs, furniture, etc., at Camp Borden sold, who were the purchasers and what prices were received for the various articles?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. CALDWELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, documents, and other papers exchanged between the Dominion Government, or any official thereof, or the officials of the Canadian Government Railways and the Government of New Brunswick, or any official of the said Government, or any of the officials of the St. John and Quebec Railway Company with regard to the procuring of running rights for the trains of the 'St. John and Quebec Railway over the Canadian Pacific Railway between Westfield Beach and St. John. Also of all papers, documents and correspondence exchanged between the Dominion Government or any official thereof or any officials of the Canadian Government Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any official thereof, regarding the securing of the said running rights.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 

EMPLOYMENT OFFICES CO-ORDINATION.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House returned to the first reading of Senate Bills.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved that Bill No. 124 (from the Senate) to amend the Employment Offices Co-ordination Act be read the first time.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: This Bill enables the
Department of Labour to make arrangement with municipalities of the same character precisely as under the former Bill it was able to make with provinces for the carrying on of employment offices co-operatively with the provincial authorities.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



ORDER OF BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: Before proceeding with the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I desire to put a question and to offer a suggestion to my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). In the intimation that is given to us. of the programme of business for the day there is mention of a motion for Committee of- Supply, but it is at the foot of the Order Paper. It has been there on several occasions lately, and the consequence is that the motion is not reached. If it could be reached at all it would be late in the evening when the House is likely to be weary and very thin. One of the objects of the motion to go into Committee of Supply is to afford an opportunity, which does not otherwise arise, for the discussion of public questions' of importance. There is a matter which some members on this side desire to bring to the attention of the House, and we hope that an opportunity may be afforded as early as possible. To-morrow will be a holiday; Friday automatically the Speaker leaves -the Chair; Monday is Budget day; so there is no prospect of an early opportunity being afforded unless it be to-day. My suggestion is that the right hon. gentleman, after consultation and at his convenience, will fix an hour, either this afternoon or evening, but not late at night, when the motion for Committee of Supply may be moved, in order that an opportunity may be afforded for the exercise of one of the most vital principles of our parliamentary system.


George Green Foster: In answer to my hon. friend, the House will go into Committee of Supply at eight o'clock to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: Thank you.



EXPLOSIVE WORKS AT BELOEIL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. 
Archambault) asked yesterday a question as to certain explosions that had taken place in his constituency, and desired to know what action had been taken with regard thereto. The Explosives Division of the Department of Mines has record of two explosions, one on the 27th of April and one on the 3rd of May. Following each explosion an officer was sent for the purpose of making an investigation; he has returned, and his report is almost -complete.



HONEY ADULTERATION-SENATE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 29 respecting Honey.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (Minister of Health):	Mr. Speaker, the Senate has
added a section to this Bill, No. 4, the effect of which is to provide that the penalties under the Food and Drugs Act shall apply to the violation of the provisions of this Act in lieu of the penalties under the Criminal Code, which otherwise would be applicable. There ns no objection to the change made by the Senate; probably on the whole it is an improvement. The only point is that the Senate has not made the amendment wholly efficacious to accomplish the purpose intended. Therefore I desire to slightly modify the Senate amendment.
Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. President of the Privy Council to speak in a louder tone of voice? His remarks are quite inaudible at this end of the Chamber, and we do not know what- is going on.


Mr. ROWELL:: Mr. Speaker, the Senate has amended the Bill by adding a new section, Number 4, the effect of which is to provide that the penalties under the Food and Drugs Act shall apply to violations of this Act in lieu of the penalties which would be applicable under the Criminal Code in the absence of this specific provision. I see no objection to the Senate amendment; it is probably, on the whole, wise that the same penalty should apply to violations of this Act as apply to violations of the Food and Drugs Act. But the form of the amendment made by the Senate is hardly such as to accomplish the purpose in view. I therefore move to vary it by striking out the words " section 2 or" in the first line thereof and inserting in the first line after the word " who," the following:
is guilty of wilful adulteration of honey under section 2. or who-

The effect of the change will he as follows. The clause as amended by the Senate reads:
Every one who violates any provision of section 2 or 3 of this Act is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to the penalties provided by section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.
When amended as now proposed, it will read as follows:
Every one who is guilty of wilful adulteration of honey under section 2 or who violates any provision of section 3 of this Act is guilty of an offence and liable upon summary conviction to the penalties provided by section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1920.
The Department of Justice has advised that this amendment should be made.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: What are the
penalties provided by section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are as follows:
If the adulteration is deemed to be injurious to health within the meaning of the Act, for a first offence, upon summary conviction a fine not exceeding $200 and costs and not less than $50 and costs or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment; and for each subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding $500 and costs and not less than $50 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term .not exceeding six months or to both fine and imprisonment. If the adulteration is not deemed to be injurious to health, the provision is, a fine not exceeding $100 and costs and not less- than $25 and costs, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months; and for each subsequent offence a fine not exceeding $200 and costs and not less than $50 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.


Mr. KAY:: Why is there no provision
for penalty in the case of adulteration of honey after it is made by the bees? There is provision here against feeding sugar to the bees, but there is nothing to prevent the beekeeper from adulterating the honey after it is produced.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question submitted by the hon. member (Mr. Kay) is, I think, wide of the motion now before the Chair. I would also direct the attention of the House to the fact that the minister has already spoken. We are not in committee, and there is no right to reply.


Mr. BUREAU:: May I ask the minister a question? These amendments have to go back to the Senate, have they not? I have here a letter from a person who is interested in another branch of industry where a food product is produced by animals not out of their own flesh. He suggests that after the word " honey " we should add the word " poultry," and that the following be added as subsection 2A:
Feeding poultry with lard, except for the purpose of being consumed by them as food, or with butter or any oily substance-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I doubt very much
whether the hon. member is in order. We are limited to a discussion of the amendment which is now before the House.


Jacques Bureau: The amendments have to go back to the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot add anything except what the minister says. Do I understand it to be the rule that if the minister submits an amendment I cannot add anything to it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A suggested amendment would have to be germane to the clause under consideration.


Jacques Bureau: Well, the clause under
consideration, as I understand it, deals with penalties imposed upon those who violate the provisions of this Act. The suggestion that I am dealing with is that something else should be added as a protection in the case of food produced by animals not out of their own flesh. But if I am out of order, of course I bow to your ruling.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must point out to the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) that this amendment is a consequential amendment, and one, therefore, which can be made on motion put in this manner. Any other amendment, however, would require that the Bill be referred back to the committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Amendment proposed by Hon. Mr. Rowell to the Senate amendment agreed to.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 109, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few observations to make-
The speech of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) wa9 'nterrupted at this point by

the prolonged applause which greeted the entrance into the Chamber to take his seat for the first time this session of the Kt. Hon. Sir E. L. Borden, Prime Minister, who had been absent by reason of illness.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am delighted Mr. Speaker, that the good luck has fallen to a member of the Opposition to be in position to welcome the Prime Minister back to the House. Just at that point where we had the delightful experience of welcoming the Prime Minister upon his return, I was addressing you, Sir, upon the Bill now before the House.
What I would like to say-and I direct my remarks particularly to the Minister of Justice, who has charge of this Bill-is that it is not desirable to be amending the constitution and powers of the courts unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. The Supreme Court Act is quite an old enactment. It has been amended a few times, but not very often. The Prime Minister, who is now in his seat, the Minister of Justice, and every lawyer in this House, know that it is exceedingly desirable that the practice and procedure of the courts should continue without very much change. The Supreme Court of Canada is not like a provincial court; it is a court to which all provinces look as an appellate court, and for that reason it is desirable that the practice and procedure and constitution of that court should be well known and well established.
Unless there is most urgent necessity, any change in the constitution of the court, which change would necessarily mean a change in practice, should be avoided and should be indulged in as seldom as possible. (Lawyers in this House know that text-books have been written on the Supreme Court Act and that those text-books are in the libraries of lawyers from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Those text-books endeavour to show as clearly as possible the powers and the practice of the court. Several points in regard to the jurisdiction of the court and the scope of it have been settled, upon the old Act, by decisions of the Privy (Council. For these reasons it is highly desirable that those text-books which have (been written on the old Act and decisions rendered by the Privy Council along those lines should be held as authorities and that nothing should be done by us, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, which would have the effect of destroying the interpretations which have -been given to the Act and also of destroying the
[Mr. McKenzie.}
usefulness of the text-books I have mentioned .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. There is a volume of conversation going on, not only on the floor of this Chamber, but I regret to say, in other parts of the Chamber. I would ask that more consideration be shown to the business of the House.	[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have read the Supreme Court Act several times before, but I have read it recently and I have also read the amendments made in different years and the amendments that are now proposed. I am not quite convinced that the amendments now proposed are highly necessary. They may be, and possibly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will explain the necessity for them. With these remarks, which will appeal to lawyers, if not to other people, I should like the minister to bear in mind that we should interfere as little as possible with the constitution and the established practice of the court. Every hon. member who is in any particular calling knows that he does not want the tools to which he is accustomed, changed. We have had a good deal of talk about containers of food, of fish, farming' implements and all that sort of thing, and a great deal of dissatisfaction is occasioned if there is any undue interference. We are now in the field where we are tampering with the implements of the trade of the much maligned lawyer. I am only anxious that lawyers should be protected as much as is possible by our not interfering with the proper administration of justice as regards this oourt.


Et. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. (Speaker-


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: Before the minister
speaks, I must direct the attention of the House to the fact that if the minister exercises his right to reply, the debate is closed. Therefore, if any hon. member desires to speak on this matter, he should do so now.


Mr. DOHERTY:: -I fully appreciate and share the views of the hon. gentleman as to the undesirability of unnecessarily modifying the law prescribing the duties, functions and powers of the Supreme Court. I realize also the importance of not making modifications which imay render inapplicable decisions which have been made in the past, or possibly the observations of textbooks written upon them. But I desire to point out that the purpose of this Bill is one of simplification. It does not affect the

constitution of the court; it affects the jurisdiction of the court, and its principal purpose is to make that jurisdiction the same with regard to cases coming fro'm any of the provinces. Its second purpose is to simplify the provisions that now determine that jurisdiction. As the hon. member has said, the Supreme Court Act has, from time to time, been the subject of amendment, and if one looks at it in its present condition, it is evident that some, at all events, of the amendments that have been made, have been made from the point of view of meeting particular cases that have arisen. The result is that you have these provisions for particular cases bearing upon the question of jurisdiction and dealing with that question in that way, producing, I think, a lack of clearness. This Bill is introduced at the suggestion of the judges of the court, and as a result of their experience in the application of the law. As I have said, its principal purpose is to make the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court applicable to the same classes of cases without distinction between the provinces from which those cases come, and that in itself is a desirable thing. Its second purpose is, as I have said, to simplify the form of the sections in which the jurisdiction is defined, so as to reduce the cases down to limited classes which will cover all the cases intended to be covered without the necessity of having specific provisions for particular kinds of cases.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House thereupon went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to move to
amend subparagraph (a) by striking out the word "and" in the last line thereof and adding the following:
Provided that except in cases in which such highest court of final resort has concurrent jurisdiction with the court from which it is sought to appeal, special leave shall not be granted in any case which is not appealable to such highest court of last resort and which has not been heretofore appealable to the Supreme Court; and,
The purpose of the amendment is to correct the provision as it stood, which would have produced a Tesult which was not intended. Under the section as it stands in the Bill, cases involving small amounts in the different provinces which are not appealable within the province would have been appealable to the Supreme Court on leave of the court of last resort in the province. There was no intention to produce, and I do not think there would be any justification for producing that result, and it is to prevent that that I am proposing this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On section 41-leave of provincial court of last resort:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: His Majesty enjoys certain privileges before the courts, but I think it is giving him an unfair advantage to grant this privilege which is refused to the ordinary citizen. I have in mind cases of damages against the Crown, for instance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In so far as His Majesty is given any special right here, it is a right he already has. These classes of cases mentioned here are appealable under the law as it stands, without anybody's leave. At the present time for the provinces other than Quebec $1,000 is the amount fixed for the "de piano" right of appeal. This Bill for the "de piano" right as regards all provinces makes it $2,000, but in other cases there may be an appeal by leave of the court of last resort of the provinces. The reason why a special provision is made for all the classes of cases enumerated in the present section is that there was in all these cases a right to appeal "de piano," and it was thought that to subject that absolute right as it now stands to the condition that there should be leave to appeal given by the highest court of last resort in the province might in certain cases be looked upon as depriving those parties of a very substantial right, and upon that consideration we have this provision, that even if the court of last resort in the provinces does not, with regard to that particular class of cases, think an appeal ought to be granted, it is possible for the Supreme Court to grant it. I do not know whether it is very necessary, but it is put there because in the opinion of the judges it would remove any ground for suggesting that the parties to these particular classes of cases who had this exceptional right of appeal "de piano" were being deprived of resort to the Supreme Court.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: May I be permitted to remark that it is only by exercise of the sense of sight that we at this end of the Chamber can have some shrewd suspicion that certain hon. gentlemen at the other end are speaking.


The CHAIRMAN:: The remarks of the hon. member are perfectly justified, and I

think the position of hon. members at the other end of the Chamber is aggravated by the fact that there is altogether too much conversation in the House. The acoustics of this Chamber are not bad; they are very good, and the conversations carried on by hon. members render it absolutely impossible for those at the other end to hear what is being said at this end. I must request hon. members to refrain from indulging in conversation in the Chamber.
On section 3-when appeal shall be brought.


Mr. JACOBS:: This section amends section 69 of the Supreme Court Act by adding the following words to that section:
Provided that the months of July and August shall he excluded In the computation of the said sixty days.
Will the minister be kind enough to explain this section in detail?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The delay of sixty days is prescribed for certain classes of cases where an application is necessary, and within which time it must be made. This provision is made to meet the fact that July and August are very generally looked upon in the legal profession as vacation months; and in fact, under the laws of some provinces, these months are not included in the delays prescribed for taking certain steps in procedure. I do not say that this is true in all cases. The hon. member knows there are exceptional cases, but this is the general rule, and it was considered fair to make this provision so that the months of July and August, in regard to the particular delay of sixty days referred to in this section, should not count. Difficulties have arisen and people have found their rights jeopardized, and this provision seems to me but reasonable.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the minister not think that this is.adding to the law's delays?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So long as the long vacation exists I am afraid it will add to the law's delays. I can say that in the opinion of the judges of the court, as well as in my opinion, this is a desirable provision to meet practical conditions that exist.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: In regard to the Budget Speech, I desire to make
[The Chairman.]
a final announcement of a decision arrived at by reason of great kindness of heart on my part and insistent persuasion by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. If the House is agreeable, the Budget Speech will be delivered on Tuesday next and we shall go into Supply on Monday. This will afford my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and his associates an opportunity for some longed-for discussion which they have contemplated for some time.


William Stevens Fielding: May I supplement the observations of my right hon. friend by expressing the assumption that we are to go into Supply on Monday night and not on Monday, as the hon. gentleman says, without qualification. Of course, there is an old proverb that says that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth, 1p.m. and we therefore accept my hon. friend's concession. I may say, however, that there has been a little understanding on both sides, and I hope it is to our mutual convenience.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
T.he House resumed from May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When progress was reported upon this Bill last nightj clauses 32, 44, 45, 63 and 101 had been allowed to stand and all of the other clauses had been adopted with the exception of paragraph (k) of clause 2 and clauses 19 and 76 which provide for the expenditure of money and which cannot be adopted until .the House has concurred in the required resolution. The last clause adopted was clause 37 and we have now reached clause 44, Mr. Guthrie moves to amend the clause by inserting in line 45 on page 32 of the Bill after the words "in form P" the following words:
-issued under his hand in the English and French languages in every electoral district in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and in the English language only in other electoral districts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I move to further amend clause 44 by striking out subclause (3) of the -aid clause and substituting therefor the following:
(3)	The returning officer shall at the same time notify in writing each postmaster of the provisions of subsection five of this section.

(4)	The returning officer shall, as soon as possible, deliver or send by registered mail ten copies of such notice in form P to each candidate nominated.
(5)	Every postmaster shall, forthwith after receipt of such notice in form P, post it up in some conspicuous place within his office to which the public has access and maintain it posted there until the time fixed for polling day has passed, and failure to do so shall be ground for his dismissal from office. For the purposes of this provision such postmaster shall be deemed an election officer and liable as such.
Clauses 44 and 45 as drawn were rather mixed up; some sections of 45 should be in 44, and some in 44 should he in 45. The assistant clerk of the Crown has drawn the sections as they should be. The only important change is that the proclamation setting out the polls should be required to be in English and French in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, a provision similar to that which is contained in the clause which was under discussion yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 45: Further duty of returning officer.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend clause 45 by striking out the word "and" in the fifteenth line of page 33 and by inserting after the words "in voting" in the seventeenth line of the said page the following words:	,
-and (e) a copy of this Act and of the instructions referred to in section thirty-six.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 32-preparation of lists of voters.
Hugh Guthrie: I have a number of amendments to propose to this clause. I do not know that they pertain particularly to the first part of the clause and perhaps it would be better for the convenience of the committee if I were to propose them as we went along rather than to give them now.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it might facilitate the progress of business if the minister would state what the amendments are, because some of us may contemplate proposing amendments of a similar character which would then be unnecessary.


Hugh Guthrie: My amendments are not of a radical nature. They do not change the Act materially, but raerSly correct clerical errors and computations of time which have not been made to fit in the original draft.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My purpose was to suggest to the Acting Solicitor General to give us any amendments that he has to each subsection as it is read. Then we will have the whole section before us with the proposed amendments.
On subsection (3)-certified copies of voters' lists to be furnished by custodian upon payment of fees.


Mr. POWER:: I think perhaps it would be well to make a change in line forty-five of subsection 3. Instead of, .as the subsection reads, "to any person," I would suggest to the minister that the wording be, "to any duly authorized person." Otherwise, a certain number of people interested in one trade or another might go to the custodian of the electoral lists and ask for a copy of the lists on payment of a fee. I have no objection to that; my objection is this: There is no reason why the Government should keep, for the convenience of the persons I mentioned, a copy of the number of people on the lists in any particular town or constituency.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend suggests that the words "duly authorized" should be inserted. I do not know what an "authorized" person would be under the Act.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He would be a man who needs, for federal purposes, to obtain the lists.


Hugh Guthrie: Suppose the lists are required for a referendum?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That clause has not yet been passed and as far as I am concerned it will not pass.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any objection to anybody who feels interested enough in getting a copy of the voters' lists going and paying the fee and getting those lists; it is sometimes a matter of great convenience to be able to get them. Unless some objection is pointed out, and I do not see any, there is no reason why the change suggested should be made.	.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My Objection is simply this: I do not see why the Federal or Provincial Government should pay to have voters' lists in order that any man Who wishes to advertise any particular article of trade-it may be hats, coats, or some particular thing; it may ibe as it is in Ontario, intoxicating liquor-should get these lists. Some people in the province of Quebec get 'copies of the voters' lists, and send circulars to Ontario people. I do not

see why we should pay for that. Therefore I would like the subsection to read that the lists shall be furnished to any "duly authorized man." If a liquor vendor, or any other kind of vendor, wants a list of people in order to circularize them, let him go and get a list of the people himself and not have the Government supply it to him.


Hugh Guthrie: If I understand the subsection aright the man who gets the list has to pay for it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He has to pay for it, but I am quite sure the fee he would have 'to pay would be very small as compared with the cost of making up the list.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it my hon. friend's idea that such person should not get the list or that the fee should be made laTger?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My idea is that we should not have such lists at the disposal of people who are not authorized to have them.


Hugh Guthrie: The voters' list is more or less a public document, and personally I do not see any objection to making it free and open to anybody who pays the necessary twenty-five cents, or whatever the fee is, for obtaining a copy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have no objection; I am simply making the statement to the minister, and if he will think it over I am quite sure he will come to the same conclusion as myself.


Jacques Bureau: There might be a systematic organization to get copies of the voters' lists in order to prevent a man from obtaining a copy who is entitled to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: There will have to be a certain number of copies prepared, I presume there will not be any more than the number required for the purposes of the election.


Jacques Bureau: If I make application, for instance, and there is an organization, there might be a certain number of people ahead of me and I might be deprived of my list, although a candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: That could not interfere with candidates obtaining lists. They have to be provided with lists not later than nomination day. Certain lists have to be used for the purpose of posting up, revision, and the like; they would be the first prepared. If other people want to buy lists, I do not see any objection.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Here is another objection. Supposing there has been an election with-

in a short time, and the lists are exhausted, any person may require a list, and on payment of a small fee-the Acting Solicitor General has said 25 cents; we will say $1- he will put the Government to the expense of preparing another list for the whole constituency at a cost of $200 or $300. I do not see why anyone should be given the right to do this; only those duly authorized by law should receive these lists.


Hugh Guthrie: You want the word
"authorized" inserted?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: "Duly authorized" would be sufficient for my purposes. There are only two persons duly authorized by this law to receive these lists-the returning officer and the registrar.


Hugh Guthrie: This is for provincial officials.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We are asking the provincial officials to produce lists. First of all, I do not think we have any business to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: We will discuss that again.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Secondly, suppose we put this obligation on the provincial authorities, let us put it on them only in so far as we can do so,-not let every one get lists. If you insert "duly authorized" it would mean that only those whose duty it is to receive these lists will get them.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it would be better if we put in the words "therefor for the purpose of this Act," There are no authorized persons that I know of.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am quite agreeable.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that we add after the word "applying" in the fortydifth line the words "therefor for the purpose of this Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection (6)-Power to decide status and population of place.
Hugh Guthrie: There is another clause, Mr. Chairman, to which I propose to move an amendment and which to some extent affects this clause. It is on the lines suggested by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few evenings ago, and it will be to the effect:
That the Chief Electoral Officer shall decide and state at the time of the issue of the election writ what places are and what places are not urban or rural divisions.

It will not conflict, however, with this subsection, in which I do not propose to make any change.
On subsection (8)-Date, etc., when revising officers, etc., sit, to be advertised.


Hugh Guthrie: The Assistant Clerk of the Crown in Chancery advised that this sub-clause should be amended by adding the following words:
But this subsection shall not apply to the certifying of lists prescribed by rule 16 of schedule A to this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Does the committee
desire that the schedule be now read? I may point out to the committee that whether the section is adopted in its present form or not, the schedule, if it is considered separately, can be amended afterwards.


Hugh Guthrie: Whichever way the committee finds most convenient is satisfactory to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Take up the
clause first and the schedule afterwards.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 32 carry?


Mr. ROSS:: I wish to make a few observations in regard, to this section, and in doing so I shall apply my remarks largely to the old settled section of the country, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and more particularly Ontario.
This section is an absolute departure from the practice which has prevailed in the preparation of lists in Ontario except as that practice was varied by the Wartime Elections Act. It is a decided departure from good and safe principles. It has been recognized in this country for many years that the provincial lists which were in force sixty days before nomination day were the lists used at federal elections. There were some objections taken to these lists being used, because in some cases they were a year or more than a year old and men who were entitled to vote were not on the lists. But there is this to be said: they were prepared by non-partisan men; they were prepared by municipal authorities. Party spirit did not enter into their operation at all. These lists-and this applies also to the preparation of lists in the rural parts of Ontario-were revised by the county judge; no one could say that they were not revised in a fair and upright manner. I do not think that any clause in the Act is more important than this clause,
because no matter how broad you make your franchise-and we have made it so broad under our recent laws that it includes every man and every woman twenty-one years of age who is a British subject-no matter how fair you are in the appointment of your returning officers (and I think some improvement could have been made in the Bill in that respect) if your voters' lists are not prepared in a fair and honourable and open manner by non-partisan officials, the very springs of our representative institutions are going to be fouled.
Now, I say that under clause 32 the old principle has been absolutely departed from. In the first place, in the rural parts of Ontario, enumerators-they are called by the more euphonious name of "registrars" in this Bill-are going to be appointed by returning officers who are nominees of this Government or any Government that is in power, which nominees are certain to be partisan officers. The returning officer will be chosen because he is a partisan officer, because he will help the party in power to win the election. I do not say that he is going to do that dishonestly, but I do say that all his sympathies and all his energies will be devoted to doing anything possible within the limits of the law, even with a stretching of the law, sometimes, to see that the party to whom he owes his appointment is returned to power. Under this Bill the returning officer is given the right to name the registrars. As a matter of human nature and as a matter of course, in every riding in this country registrars are going to be appointed who have at heart the interests of the party in power, and who are going to endeavour as far as they can to help advance those interests. As a matter of fact, the registrar is going to become a paid canvasser, I contend, for the Government in power, and his expenses are going to be paid by the people of Canada. I contend that that establishes, so far as the Government are concerned, nothing more or less than practically a large fund that can be improperly used. We heard not so very long ago members on the other side of the House complain about my friends to my left having large campaign funds for the assisting of their candidates at elections. But this provision of the Bill is a far more dangerous provision as a campaign fund to assist the Government than contributions made by individual farmers, as was the case in the constituency of Assiniboia and as may take place in any constituency in which a farmer candidate is running. What does it mean, Mr. Chairman? It means that throughout the Do-

minion o! Canada there will be established under this law-I am making only a rough estimate-about thirty thousand polling subdivisions. Under the Act of 1911, when women had not the vote, there were over thirteen thousand polling subdivisions. Under this Act, with the number of voters doubled and the limit of the number of polls put at 300, I do not think that my estimate of from 25,000 to 30,000 polling subdivisions is out of the way. So we come down to this situation: that the Government starts out in the election with the appointment of 25,000 or 30,000 registrars practically as their agents for the purpose of adding names of voters to the lists. I say again that these men will be paid, under the schedule which is attached to the Act, from $50 to $60 each; they become paid canvassers for the party in power. And that is not all. Under this Act these men are given far more power; they are given a more autocratic power, than they were given under the War-time Elections Act.
For instance, under the old Act, the registrar in the Yukon made changes and added names only on statutory declarations. Under this Bill, the registrar is given power to make changes on the representations of any credible witness. Under the old Act, the War-time Elections Act, bad as it was, in Nova Scotia, if the registrar added or struck off names, there was a right to appeal. Under this Bill, there is no right to appeal whatever as regards the rural parts of a constituency; the registrar has absolute discretion whether a man's name shall be added to the list or not, or whether a man's name shall be struck fiom the list or not, and it is only known nine or ten days from polling day whether that man's name is on the list or not. There is no opportunity for a 'man whose name is not on the list to get in his vote except that under clause 63 of the Bill he may get in his vote. But the benefits given by clause 63 in that regard are not by any means as great as the disadvantage that would ensue if clause 63 is allowed to remain as it is.
My first contention is that if we are going to have public faith maintained in our representative institutions, we must start out at the very spring and see what these voters' lists are absolutely fair and that nothing remains in the public mind to make them think that the lists are prepared in a partisan way for the purpose of aiding the Government in power. The preparation of the lists should be done impartially by a judicial authority as it was done in the

past, and it should not be left to the mere discretion of a partisan officer.
My second contention is that the expense in connection with the preparation of these lists is going to be very large, and at this time of this country's history when we have to look after every thousand dollars and should look after the millions more particularly and considering the fact that this enumeration will cost in the neighbourhood of a million dollars, we Bhould not encourage any system of preparation of lists which has the disadvantage that I have already pointed out and which has the additional disadvantge of putting a large burden of expense upon this country. I took the trouble of looking into the cost of the enumeration at the last election. In that election we had some 234 constituencies, in thirty-two of which members were elected by acclamation. In the balance of those constituencies contests took place. I find by looking at the Auditor General's Report, that the cost of the enumeration at the election of 1917 was $685,555. If we calculate on that basis the cost of enumeration for the thirty-two constituencies had contests taken place in them, I figure that the cost of enumeration for the 234 constituencies would have been at least $800,000. I have a statement here prepared by the Provincial Auditor of Ontario on behalf of the treasurer of that province from which statement I find that at the last election in Ontario the total expense of enumeration in that province alone was $518,266.77, This is another good and valid reason why the old system should be adopted and we should go back to the preparation of lists by the provincial authorities. If the lists in Ontario cost $518,266.77 for enumeration alone, and you consider Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick as being together equal in population to Ontario, we shall find that the lists in those four provinces will cost at least $1,000,090 for enumeration alone at the next election. But that is not all. If I read the Bill aright and go forward to clause 101 under which lists have to be prepared under the Canada Temper aruce Act for taking a referendum, and if the lists are prepared by the system which the Acting Solicitor General suggests in this Bill, it is hard to say what expense this country will be put to, because every time a referendum takes place under the Canada Temperance Act, lists will have to be prepared under this Bill and the province which asks for the referendum will not have to pay the expense, but the expense will be borne by the Dominion Government. There-

m3
fore, on the ground of expense alone, we should seek some fairer and more economical method of preparing the lists. Affairs in Toronto at the present time are in a condition of flux; but wte have before the Ontario Legislature a very fair Bill as regards the preparation of lists. This Bill is in the name of Mr. Drury, and I have no doubt that it will be passed. As an additional argument in support of my contention that we should go back from the system of enumeration to the old system of preparation of lists by local authorities, I need only point out that the Ontario- Government, after one experience, has thrown aside the enumeration system and has reverted to the old system. The system adopted in the new Ontario legislation, which I am sure will become the law of Ontario in a few days or a couple of weeks, is simply this, and it will so correspond -with our old franchise and will work in so nicely with our Act that I plead with the Acting Solicitor General to adopt it in the preparation of our lists as a matter of fairness and economy. Under the new Ontario legislation, the municipal authorities in preparing the assessment roll, are compelled to put on that assessment roll the name of every man or wom-an of twenty-one years of age; that roll is then transcribed by the clerk of the municipality and is made into a municipal voters' list for municipal purposes. That list is then subject to revision by the -Court of Revision of the municipality, and then -it is subject to revision, as in the olden- days, as my hon. friend is well aware, by a judge of the county court. In the case of a general election or in the case of a by-election on account of the death or resignation -of a member of the Ontario Legislature, under this new provincial legislation, an election board is appointed in each county consisting of officials such as the county judge, and the deputy registrar, five in all. As soon as a dissolution occurs, or a writ is issued on account of a vacancy in the Assembly this board proceeds at once with the municipal lists which have been prepared as I have described, and it prepares the list fo-r the election of members to the legislature. Nothing could be simpler, faireir or more economical as regards this Government, because this will cost them practically nothing the work being all done and paid for by t-he municipal authorities. The only expense to be incurred would be this, that in the case of a dissolution of this Houe o-r in the case of the issue of a writ, this Government would have to pay the election board some expenses in connection with the revision of 148
the lists prepared by the municipal authorities. This is a matter which the committee should consider very carefully. The Acting Solicitor General has repeatedly, in the course of this discussion said that he wants these lists to be absolutely fair; that he does not want anything of a partisan nature to enter into this legislation; that he wanits, in effect, the people of this country to have confidence in our institutions by knowing that out lists are prepared in a capable, honest and unpartisan fashion. I do not think any amendment -can be suggested to this House that will give the public more confidence in this Administration than the suggestion I have made in regard to the preparation of the lists. Without saying more, I will give notice that at some time in the course of the discussion on this Bill, not now unless some other arrangement is made, I shall move an amendment along these lines, though perhaps noit in these very words:
That section 32 be amended by the addition; of the following subsection, called 32A:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, for the purpose of any Dominion election held within the limits of the province of Ontario, the voters' lists shall, except as hereinafter provided, be those prepared and completed for municipal purposes for the several polling subdivisions under the laws of the province of Ontario, and which were at the date of the issue of the writ for said election under such laws in force for municipal purposes, and all persons named therein as entitled to vote for members of the Legislative Assembly, unless disentitled by the terms of this Act, shall he entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons, provided always that to the said lists there may he added all persons qualified to vote under this Act and there may be subtracted all persons disentitled to vote under this Act, and in revising such lists and making such additions and subtractions, the provisions of the laws of the province of Ontario regulating the revision and bringing into force of the provincial voters' lists in such case shall as far as possible he observed and followed. In such parts of the province of Ontario as are without municipal organization, the voters' lists therefor shall be prepared in accordance with the laws of the province of Ontario in force for the purpose of the election of members to the assembly, but all persons entitled to vote hereunder may he named in said lists and those disentitled to vote shall not he named In said lists.
I trust that the Acting -Solicitor General will take the suggestions I have made into his very serious consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be glad
to have the attention of thS committee, particularly of the minister in charge of the Bill, while I ask that for a short time consideration be given to the question of the preparation of the voters' lists, from the point of view chiefly of the province of



Nova Scotia. I do not rise for the purpose of criticising the Bill or the action of the Government in the matter at all. I am giving my attention entirely to the making of suggestions which I hope may be found so reasonable that the minister can see the propriety of accepting them. At an earlier stage of the discussion of this measure I spoke of the desirability -of using the provincial lists as far as possible, and it is along that line that I wish to speak to the committee now. I suppose we can all admit that if the provincial lists are fair and reasonable, it would be well to have them adopted. The preparation of an electoral list is a matter of difficulty, a matter of expense, and a matter of trouble for the men who are interested in politics and sometimes where the political battle wages fiercely, it is a matter of considerable political strife. Now it is not desirable that these troubles and this strife shall he repeated if you can get from the province a fair list as a basis. Why should not that be adopted for Dominion purposes if it is a fair and reasonable list? I do not suppose there would be any dispute on that point.
There is an impression, I have gathered from conversations with some hon. members, and reference has been made to it in the IHfouse that the electoral list of Nova Scotia is largely a list based upon property qualifications. I want to point out that that is practically a mistake. There is a property qualification which is taken into consideration in preparing the original list, but it is not a fact that any man in Nova Scotia who ought to he entitled to vote is disqualified for -lack of property qualifications. The existing electoral law of Nova Scotia comes so near to the Dominion franchise that even if there were no change to be made in it, there would be no good reason for having separate lists.
T am going to ask the attention of the committee while I give them briefly a little history of the preparation of electoral lists and the creation of the franchise in Nova Scotia. There was a time, very long ago, when there was a property qualification, not a large one, but still a property qualification. Prior to 1863 theTe had been universal suffrage, what is now called manhood suffrage, but in that year the Government of the day brought in a Bill to adopt a restricted franchise. How that Bill came to he adopted, and what were its consequences on the political history of Nova Scotia, is a very interesting chapter, but does not concern us here. A re-

stricted franchise was adopted in 1863, and that remained the law without any material change until 1885. At that time I had the honour of being Prime Minister of the province, and it fell to my lot and was my privilege to introduce a Bill to widen the franchise by bringing in a very large proportion of the young men of the province. The new Bill proposed that the sons of farmers and sons living with their parents, if their property qualification either as owners or as yearly tenants was sufficient, should be brought in, and under that law the vast majority of the young men of the province were given the franchise in 1885, and that is a long time ago. At a later stage in our history there was added an income franchise, and when that franchise calling for an annual income of $250, I think, was added to the former we had a franchise so near to manhood suffrage that even if we took the provincial lists as they are to-day they would be practically the same as the Dominion lists prepared under this legislation. But there is to-day before the legislature of Nova Scotia a Bill introduced 'by a member of the Government and supported by the leader of the Opposition, and therefore likely to become law, to make the franchise of Nova Scotia correspond exactly with the Dominion franchise. I have already pointed out that even if there was no change made in the provincial law there would be no material difference, but that there may be no -room for difficulty on that score I point out to my hon. friends that this Bill introduced by a member of the Government and supported by the leader of the Opposition is now in process of passing through the legislature of Nova Scotia, and I take it for granted, for the reasons I have mentioned, that it will he enacted. So there will toe no difference between the franchise law of the Dominion and the franchise law of Nova Scotia.


Hugh Guthrie: There are differences in the Bill. I have seen it.


William Stevens Fielding: Material differences?


Hugh Guthrie: There are differences,
but I understand there have been some amendments since I last saw the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I read only a newspaper report, and it stated that the object was to bring the Nova Scotia franchise substantially into harmony with the Dominion franchise. I have not had the Bill before me, but I take it for granted, having regard to the object of the legislation, that if there are any material differences, amendments

will be made, because I saw it stated by the minister introducing the Bill that the object sought was to conform with the Dominion franchise. Even if it were not so, the franchise law actually existing today is so near manhood suffrage that it is not worth while paying much attention to the difference, and I hope the minister will see that there is no reason why we should not adopt the Nova Scotia lists as they stand.
I am not going to move an amendment, but I shall read one which I have drafted, and leave it for the consideration of my hon. friend at a later moment. My object now is only to- assist in the discussion of this matter, and to give reasons why I think we ought not to have the two lists. My hon. friend (Mr. Boss) has given figures to show the enormous cost involved in preparing the lists, and I think that must be obvious to all. We will all surely agree that if the provincial lists are fair lists they ought to be adopted. Oot only for the convenience of the public, nor to save expense to the public treasury, but on both these grounds we should 'guard against having a repetition of the lists.
How are the Nova Scotia lists made up? There is an impression, I find, that there is some partisanship in the making up of the lists. That is not so, as far as I can learn. The lists are prepared by revisers appointed by the municipal councils, and I think it has come to be a very generally understood thing that men of both political parties are appointed to the revising board. The preliminary list is made up and published in all public places, and a day is fixed when those who are interested in the matter can apply to have a name added or a name struck off. On the day appointed they appear, and the lists are revised at that stage. Then there is a final stage; there is a court 'of appeal in the sheriffs of the province. I have heard it Suggested-I will not say argued, because it is no argument-that because the sheriffs are appointed by the Provincial Government, therefore they 'will be partisans. Let me repeat a suggestion I offered on a previous occasion. This Dominion Franchise Act assigns certain duties to the county judges. They are appointed by the Dominion Government. If I should object to that on the ground that because they are appointed by the Dominion Government they will therefore be partisan, that would be a very foolish argument. It would be no argument at all, nor is it any argument to say that the sheriffs of Nova Scotia because they are appointed by the Provin-1484
cial Government must be partisan. It so happens that nearly all the sheriffs in Nova Scotia are old and experienced public officials. Most of them are longer in the public service than any judges we have on the bench. There are eighteen sheriffs in Nova Scotia, sixteen of whom have held office for over five years, fifteen have held office for more than ten years, eight have held office for more than twenty years, and in my own constituency, where there are two sheriffs, one has been in office thirty-six years and the other forty-three years. These sheriffs are old and experienced officers, and although they imay have had their predilections, as we all have, before appointment, I submit that when men are appointed to public office- and I care not to what side they belong,- in nine cases out of ten they realize a sense of responsibility not to party -but to the state in which they are permanent officers. It is therefore but fair to say that men who have held the office of sheriff for all these years I have indicated are just as likely to be just and reasonable and nonpartisan as any judge of the Supreme Court or of the County Court of Nova Scotia, or any other province. I think that that is a fair argument, and I can see no answer for it. I urge that the fact that the appeal is to the sheriff of the province should not be regarded for a single moment as an indication that the sheriffs of this country will be partisan in this matter. I for one am confident that they will not be. It so happens that the Government of the province of Nova Beotia for a very long period has been Liberal, and inevitably they have appointed their friends. We do not blame them; we do not blame the Government of the day for appointing their friends to offices. It follows therefore that most of these men I have mentioned are Liberals, although in one case in my own county the sheriff is a Conservative. Whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, however, when such men, 'bein& good and worthy citizens, are appointed to responsible offices of this permanent character, they bring to their duties a sense of responsibility and justice and they should not be assumed to be partisans any more than the judges of the country are regarded as partisans because of the fact that at one time before they came to the Bench they had their own political preferences. The question of expense is a considerable one. My hon. friend from Middlesex has dealt with that question and has submitted certain figures. He says that there will not be much expense incurred in Ontario if

we adopt this proposal. Well, there will not be a dollar of expense -in Nova Scotia if you adopt what I suggest. The lists are always ready; they are revised every year, and you do not want any special lists. You can never have an election there without having a list ready, and if my suggestion were adopted it would not cost the Dominion of Canada one single penny. Why, then, should not lists of that kind be accepted as a finality? Why should lists made up in the way I have described be submitted to any one else in order that they may be added to or subtracted from? I do not discuss the question of motives or party at all in regard to this matter; I am simply stating the case from the point of view of common sense. The
5 p.m. motion I am about to read includes the province of New Brunswick, as I ata informed by my hon. friend from that province that the situation there is pretty much the same as in Nova Scotia. I will leave them, however, at a later stage to speak on the question from their point of view, but they assure me that the case of New Brunswick is very much like our own. I confine taiy remarks to Nova Scotia because I am best acquainted with conditions in that province and the suggestion I offer to the minister is that we insert a section 32jA the following:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the lists of voters for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall be those prepared and completed for the several polling divisions under the laws of the respective provinces for the purposes of provincial elections if they are completed within one year immediately preceding the issue of the writ for such election, and no names shall be added to or subtracted from such lists.
Now, I trust I have given the minister ample reason why he should not ask for any special lists in the province of Nova Scotia. I believe that there is no reason in the world why the lists prepared in the way I have described should not be accepted for Dominion purposes.


Mr. BUTTS:: It is only in view of the
remarks of tny hon. friend that I attempt to speak this afternoon, for I am suffering from hoarseness due to a severe cold.


Mr. KEID (Mackenzie):: Will the hon.
member please come further to the front? We are anxious to hear what is being said, but we simply cannot.
Mr. BUTT'S: Why don't you come up to the front?


Hugh Guthrie: That is what we did in the old House; we all gathered around.

Mr. BiUTTS:	I speak only in view ol
what has been said toy imy hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) because of all imen in this House he is the last who should speak on the franchise. In the year 1882 he became Premier of Nova Scotia. At that time there was on the Statute Book of Nova Scotia a law which provided that no person holding office under the Dominion Government had a right to vote in provincial elections. You were Premier of Nova Scotia for thirteen years, and in 1896 by some freak of fortune, you were taken into the Laurier Cabinet.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to
the hon. member-


Robert Hamilton Butts: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman; I perceive my error. My hon. friend was Minister of Finance in the Laurier Cabinet for some time from 1896. Now, a few nights ago when my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) was speaking, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's interrupted to say that he did not believe the statement of my hon. friend to be correct. Had it not been for my hoarseness I would have asked the hon. member to go with me into the library, and if he did not know I would have shown him there that D. iC. Fraser, who was member of Parliament for Guysborough and a bosom friend of the hon. member, debated this very question of the franchise against Mr. Black of Cumberland and Mr. Owen, of my hon. friend's own county, when they wanted to amend the franchise law.
In those days, gentlemen of this House will remember-and they can refresh their recollection by a reference to the records to be found in the Parliamentary library- my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's was disfranchising British subjects. To-day he is solicitous about the enfranchising of enemy aliens. Is that not true? Answer me? I wait for an answer. Will you answer?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Do not deny it because I
will bring the Hansard of Nova Scotia legislature to prove to you that I am right. I ask you for a reply? I ask the hon. gentleman through you, Mr. Chairman, to reply to me, and say whether I am right or wrong. Ah, yes ! solicitous for the foreign alien enemy, but not solicitous for the man who was not only a British subject but of British origin. When the Fielding Government came into power in Nova Scotia in 1882, and in that connection my

hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) made a mistake the other day-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must point
out to the hon. member that he is out of order.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I know I am always wrong, but I ask to be granted a little indulgence.


Georges Henri Boivin: I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the question now under discussion is the making of the voters' lists.


Robert Hamilton Butts: That, Mr. Chairman, is
what I am getting at now.


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope the hon. member will he good enough to come to the point.


Robert Hamilton Butts: That is what I am getting at, and I have no doubt in the world that you will recognize that I will come around to it sooner or later. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's now seems to be solicitous that every one should have the vote. Would I he out of order if I we e to recount, or retell, a little incident that occured in the local legislature between myself and the Premier of Nova Scotia? Perhaps I would not be altogether in order in doing that, but I do not think it would do any harm to tell the story. I and my colleague from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Douglas) had occasion to complain one time that twenty of our voters -twenty Conservative voters-were struck off the list because there were no Liberal magistrates who would take their oath when they went to swear. You will find all this set fo th in the Hansard of Nova Scotia. I complained about it in the local House. The Hon. George H. Murray, the successor of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, told me, as to the reason for this, that he knew not why, and I said to him across the floor:	" If you know not why,
will you give me your promise here this evening that you will appoint two magistrates in Cape Breton county-one to be named by myself and one to be named by Mr. Douglas? He promised me that he would. We submitted those two names but up till to-day neither one of them has ever been appointed, and we could not get a name on the list except by force. Now my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) gets up and swells out his chest and talks about the honour and the honesty of politics. Ah, yes ! but when he was in power where was his honesty or integrity?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that this committee is not dealing with the honesty and integrity of any member of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Georges Henri Boivin: We are discussing .a *certain clause, and the rule is clear that the discussion must be strictly relevant to that clause. I do hope that old political sores will not be raked over in the course of this discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bravo.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I know, Mr. Chairman,
that you are perfectly right, and you may have noticed that 1 have always bowed to the decision of the Chair. But let me go one little bit further and, I hope, not in a disorderly manner. Let me say this: That the first election that was run by the Laurier Government after its return to office, took place, if you remember, in 1901.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, 1900.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Very true, 1900. If you make search in the library yonder you will find that the previous year the statutes of Nova Scotia had been revised-and in that revision-one year before the election-entirely to my mind at the suggestion of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, George Murray, the Premier of Nova Scotia, had dropped from the statutes the Act that disqualified officials that were appointed by the Dominion Government. Now I ask you, gentlemen on both sides of this House, is it possible that sane men are going to take their standards from the member for Shelburne and Queen's? I won't.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I regret that I am
not able to agree with all of the statements which have been made by my hon. friend who represents the constituency of Shelburne and Queen's. I do not suppose for a moment that the hon. member intended to mislead the committee, but it really does seem to me that he could hardly have compressed more inaccuracies within the four corners of his speech if he had really set out with that object in view. I think therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will have to ask the, committee to bear with me while I go very briefly-if I can-into matters of a somewhat provincial character, in order to show exactly what the conditions in the province of Nova Scotia are as far as the revising of the lists is concerned. I am opposed to the proposition made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's

(Mr. Fielding) for various reasons. In the first place, the lists in the province of Nova Scotia, are, as he stated, revised by revisers appointed by the municipal councils. But unfortunately, for reasons which I will later explain, in that province the municipal councils are run on strictly party lines. Rural municipal elections-I do not now refer to municipal elections in cities and towns-are quite as partisan as are the Dominion and provincial elections. The result is that in every rural district partisans, or at least very strong party men, are elected to represent the various municipal districts. These men naturally appoint revisers whom they think will prepare lists which will make their re-election easy. I may say, so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, that I think that, with one or two exceptions, the party to which my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) belongs has control of all the municipal councils oif the province, which means that they have the appointment of all the revisers.
The councillors who appoint these revisers, as may be expected, are not men of quite the same stamp as members of the Provincial Legislature, and they are not quite as careful in their appointments as members of a larger and more influential body would be. I am speaking now of both Liberals and Conservatives. Consequently the revisers iare as a rule intense party men, They are not at all skilled in .the construction of statutes, they are just men picked up anywhere, without any particular knowledge of law, without any other qualification than the fact that they are capable supporters of the councillor from their district and may be depended upon to prepare a list favourable to his re-election. Into the hands of these laymen is placed a very complicated piece of legislation. I am not saying that it is designedly ambiguous, but I do say that there is not on the statute books of Nova Scotia a more ambiguous and difficult piece of legislation to construe than is the Franchise Act.
My hon. friend has said that there has been practically manhood suffrage in the province for a number of years. I am obliged to take very decided issue with him on that point. If he refers to the statutes of 1918 he will find two pages are covered in describing the -different franchise qualifications. A man may vote: if he owns $150 worth of real estate; if he owns $300 of real estate and personal property combined; if he rents a house or a piece of land worth $150; and there are various other qualifications. If a person owns $150 worth of real

estate in the province, whether he is a resident of his district or not, in the past he has been entitled to be registered as a voter. Moreover if a man is assessed for $150 worth of real estate on the municipal assessment roll, whether he is properly assessed or not, whether he owns any property or not, and whether he lives in the province or not, that qualifies him for a vote.
What has been the result of that legislation? It has led to the bedevilment of the assessment rolls. Unscrupulous assessors have in many instances loaded up the municipal assessment rolls with the names of men who are not owners of property, who are not residents in the province, but in many instances reside in the United States. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), if he will examine the assessment rolls of his own county, will, I am quite sure, find that condition of affairs there. I was unfortunate enough at one time to be connected with a by-election in my hon. friend's constituency, and I remember going very carefully over the lists and finding something like 400 nonresident voters in that county-persons with doubtful or no qualifications whatever, persons who were residing in the United States and who never came to the county except at election time, when they were brought over to deposit their ballots. I say that is a most vicious condition of affairs, and unfortunately that condition exists not only in my hon. friend's constituency but in almost every other constituency in that province.
But while there is no- residence qualification in so far as persons w!ho are assessed as property owners are concerned, there is a very rigid residential qualification in so far as persons voting-


John Howard Sinclair: If my
hon. friend will permit me. Does he say there is no residence qualification for voters in the province?


Avard Longley Davidson: If my hon. friend had possessed his soul in patience a little while longer he would have found his question unnecessary; but I will answer it. I say that so far as persons who are assessed as owners of real estate of the qualifying amount are concerned, no residential qualification is required; but I do say that so far as other persons are concerned, there is a very exacting residential qualification required, and it is this


John Howard Sinclair: But my
hon. friend is aware that the Dominion Franchise Act requires a man to live in a constituency, and if the oath can be put to him, and he is on the list, that does not

affect the question at all, because the law that we are now passing contains a provision whereby that can be checked.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think my hon. friend misses the point absolutely. The proposition, as I understand it from my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), is that we shall adopt the provincial lists, and that a person who is on the provincial lists shall be eligible to vote on a federal election.


John Howard Sinclair: That is all.


Avard Longley Davidson: As I said before, if a
person does not happen to be assessed for property, if he is obliged to vote on his income qualification, he is surrounded with very strict provisions. Take, for example, the case of a clergyman, of a bank clerk, or of a commercial traveller-men who are changing their residence very frequently; they find under the law of the province that - they are debarred from voting. The residential qualification is something like this: A man must be a resident of the county in which he is to vote for one year from the first day of January preceding the day of the revision of the lists. The lists are revised on the fifth of March. If therefore a clergyman moves into my county on the 2nd of January, 1920, he cannot be registered on the 5th March, 1920, because he has not been in the county a year; more than that, he cannot be registered in 1921 because he has not been a resident of the county for a year from the 1st January preceding the date of revision. The list made up in 1921 holds good until the middle of April, 1922. Consequently that clergyman could not vote if an election was held before the middle of April, 1923. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) dwelt very pathetically the other day upon the awful sense of injustice and wrong which would rankle in the heart of the child of a woman who, under the clause that was put through the other night, would, by reason of her alien birth, have to go before a judge to get a certificate in order that she might be enabled to vote. If we were to adopt the proposal of the member for Shelburne -and Queen's, what would be the position of the clergyman's child, who, when election day came around, found that all the dishonourable thugs in the community had a vote while -he, whose father was a leader in spiritual matters in the community, was debarred? 'I object to that proposition.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been told that on the same principle as -that which my hon. friend has laid before the committee, a man in Nova Scotia may be required to be twenty-three years of age before he may vote.
. An hon. MEMBER: No.


Hugh Guthrie: A very high authority in this House has demonstrated to me that that is so.


Mr. DUFF:: It is not so.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not know that he is required to be twenty-three years of age, but I think there are many cases in which he would be required to- -be twenty-two and a half.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, perhaps, near enough.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The clergyman of
which my hon. friend speaks would have sufficient income to enable his name to go on the list, and he would be on the assessment list.


Avard Longley Davidson: My hon. friend is
,wrong. He would have the income all right, but according to the law he would have to have -more than the income; he would have to have residence qualification. He would have to swear that he had been a resident of the 'county of Which the polling district forms a part for a year from the first day of January preceding the revision. Now, my hon. friend says that he would be on the assessment roll. But under the laws of Nova Scotia a man is *exempted from assessment on income up to $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No.


Avard Longley Davidson: Absolutely.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That does not deprive him of his vote. Although he is exempt from taxation, he is qualified to vote.


Avard Longley Davidson: I have the greatest respect for the legal acumen of my hon. friend, tout 1 am obliged to think that he is absolutely wrong.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not at all.


Avard Longley Davidson: A man iwho is exempt from assessment certainly is not assessed, and the law says that a man must be assessed for $250 income 'before he can vote on that qualification. If he is exempt to the extent of $1,500 in assessment on income, -then he must get $1,750 before he can be assessed. Unfortunately in Nova Scotia a great many devout and good men

[DOT]who oocu<py pulpits do not receive that remuneration, although in almost every case they deserve much more.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there a special clause in regard to clergymen or ministers, or does the same rule apply to all?


Avard Longley Davidson: The same rule applies to all; I am just citing the clergymen as an instance. The same applies to a bank manager, to a school teacher, to the hundred and one different occupations engaged in by people who frequently have occasion to change their places of residence. Then, ft must be remembered that the list is closed on the tenth day of April and if an election comes say the next February, under the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) the voter would be voting on lists almost a year old. That would mean that intelligent men, men occupying high positions, who have lived in 'the district for four years, would be debarred from the right to vote.
, Now, my hon. friend said that an appeal to the sheriff makes for a fair list; that a sheriff is just as good a man as a county court judge. I take very decided issue with him there. There is a great difference between a county court judge and a sheriff. For many years the Opposition in Nova Scotia have asked the Government to amend the law so that an appeal would lie to a county court judge. There are seven county court judges in Nova Scotia; four were [DOT]appointed by the party to which my hon. friend belongs, and three 'by either the Liberal-Conservative party or the Union Government. The Nova Scotia Government refused point-blank to permit an appeal to the county court judge; they insisted upon an appeal to the sheriff,-who, my hon. friend says, is [DOT] an absolutely independent, capable officer. My hon. friend will admit that the sheriff is not as well versed in the law as is the county court judge. The minimum salary of a sheriff in Nova Scotia is, I think, $700; you can readily understand that a salary of that kind does not attract the most acute legal minds in the province. An appeal lies from the three laymen revisers to the layman sheriff. The sheriff is in an entirely different position from that of the county court judge. The county court judge has a knowledge of law; the sheriff is usually a man who was acting as constable or something of that kind and, because of his political proclivities, made himself so useful to the party in power that he was appointed to the more remunerative and more honourable position of sheriff. That is the

kind of men who were appointed. I admit that the sheriffs in Nova Scotia are of a very much better class than they were when my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) was Premier of that province. But they are far from being men who have judicial minds. They get their inspiration and their advice from the Attorney General of the province. In cases of dispute the sheriffs feel bound to take the advice of the Attorney General,-and right there I want to relate just a little incident which will illustrate my point and give you some insight into the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia.
In 1911, I as prospective candidate for the provincial legislature, took a good deal of interest in the revising of the lists. I organized my county as best I could, and had the interests of my parts fairly represented'before the revisers. Following that I fought the thing out before the sheriff of the county; we looked after the technicalities and did the work as well as we could. Under the law the sheriff is obliged to file his list with the county clerk, on the tenth day of April, I think,-anyway, the date is not material. I made a point of being at the municipal clerk's office the day that the sheriff was to file his list. I looked it over and found that apart altogether from appeals, apart altogether from cases which were legally brought before him, the sheriff had, by striking off without cause the names of my friends and putting on the names of political opponents, made a net change in the list to the tune of 193 votes. I called by telephone the Attorney General, who was then the Hon. A. K. Maclean, and explained that this thing was an outrage and that it must he stopped. Mr. Maclean agreed that it must be stopped and finally he promised that he would wire the sheriff to make a correction and to see that this scandal was not carried out.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. member state what was the year in which that happened?


Avard Longley Davidson: In April, 1911. If my hon. friend wants any confirmation of my story, I refer him to the member for Halifax (Hon. A. K. Maclean). Although I have no word from the then Attorney General to substantiate my statement, I believe that he was as good as his word. I did observe afterwards a messenger from the telegraph office deliver a telegram to the sheriff, who was then in the clerk's office. The clerk afterwards informed me that when the sheriff got the message he left

the office and went to the office of Hon. O. T. Daniels, then provincial member for the county. After spending a little time with Mr. Daniels the sheriff returned to his office and said: "Mr. Daniels says this thing is all right; I am going to put this list through just as it is."
Mr. Daniels, who was then provincial member for the county and who afterwards became Attorney General for the province of Nova Scotia, is the man who would be the final court of appeal on these federal lists if the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) were agreed to.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Is this same Mr. O. T.
Daniels, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the man whose picture figured in the Police Gazette in New York?


Avard Longley Davidson: I am always glad to
answer any question of my hon. friend, but perhaps this question is not relevant to the subject under consideration. I can, however, satisfy him outside.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I am right, am I?


Avard Longley Davidson: As I said before, I
could multiply cases of this character, but I do not think that is necessary. I have dealt so far only with the law as it formerly was. I am now going to deal for a moment or two with the proposition as amended. It is a most extraordinary thing that for years and years the Opposition in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia has been trying to get the Provincial Government to abolish the fictitious qualifications of the old Act and to adopt manhood suffrage. That was not accomplished until within the last few weeks when a measure was introduced into the provincial legislature, and the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) who is endeavouring to steer this amendment through, seems to know all about the matter. I do not want to ibe suspicious; but it looks to me almost as though there was a guilty knowledge between these two gentlemen and that the scheme in Nova Scotia was part of the scheme as we have seen it attempted in this House to-day. However that may be, my hon. friend is very much in error in reference to the contents of this Bill and its success in getting through the House. As a matter of fact, the Bill, as introduced into the provincial legislature, is decidedly different in many Tespects, which I may have occasion to point out later on in this debate, from the Bill which is at present before this House. I am going to point out just one or t?W0' striking differences. In the first place, the Bill that we are discussing to-day provides that any
person who is a British subject, who is a resident of Canada for one year and a resident of the polling district in which he desires to vote, for two>
months preceding the election, is qualified to be registered. That is the only qualification. In Nova Scotia, the qualification is very different. The Act as it passed in the provincial legislature requires that the applicant must be a resident of the county of which the polling district forms a part for one year previous to the first day of January last past. Therefore, this is open to exactly the objections I have stated before in reference to the old Act. It is even worse than that, because by the affidavit which the applicant is obliged to take, his residence is confined not only to the county, but to the polling district itself. Let ine read the affidavit which it is necessary for a man to make if he wishes to have his name added to the voters' list.
I,	solemnly swear:
1.	That I am (or he or she is) a British subject by birth or naturalization of the full age of twenty-one years.
2.	That I am and have been (or he or she is
and has been) a resident of the province of Nova Scotia for at least one year next before the first day of January last and so resided in polling district No.	in the county of
during said period.
That means that before a man can vote under the Nova Scotia Act as amended, he must actually foe a resident of the polling district from one year from the first day of January preceding the date of the revision. That, at one stroke, would practically disqualify, I believe, fully one-quarter of the total electorate of the province of Nova Scotia. That is the kind of a list which my hon, friend suggests that this House should adopt.
My particular reason against this House adopting any municipal or provincial list is this, that I believe it will have a tendency to introduce federal politics into municipal affairs, and that I consider would be an outrage. The criticism is raised and, I fear with too much force, that we residents of Nova Scotia are a bit partisan in our nature. That certainly applies to hon. members opposite from Nova Scotia; I do not know whether it applies to members on this side of the House. It is, to some extent, true that we in Nova Scotia take, perhaps, too extreme political views on public questions. I believe the secret of the whole thing is in the system inaugurated by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), which he would try to induce this committee to perpetuate. When my hon. friend became premier of Nova Scotia as a very shrewd and astute

politician, he decided that he must have control of the lists. Therefore he went to work to capture every municipal council in Nova Scotia.. I do not condemn him for that; I think his action was wise. He said: We must have a list favourable to ourselves and so we must have municipal councils in sympathy with and of the same stripe as the Government. The result was that he introduced a vein of party politics into municipal affairs, and that has been there ever since. That is a curse. When the people of a municipality are called upon to elect a councillor, they should not ask the question whether he be a Unionist or a Liberal; they should inquire only into his personal qualifications. Furthermore, when a municipal council appoints a man to prepare the assessment rolls, it should have no regard whatever for his political proclivities. But if we are going to put the question of revision of the lists for federal purposes into the hands of these men, by that very act we make partisans of them; we introduce the curse of party politics into municipal affairs. I certainly entertain a strong conviction that this House will not consider any proposal such as that.


Mr. LEGER:: I should like to say a few words in reference to the electoral list of New Brunswick. I shall certainly ask the Government to adopt this list because I believe, on account of the way in which it is prepared, it is as perfect a list as can be made in the whole Dominion. From what I can understand as regards making up the lists throughout Canada, I believe New Brunswick is, I shall not say ahead of any other province, but equal to any other province. The list is a perfect one because it is acceptable without any complaints from either political party, and' if any other hon. member from New Brunswick is present, he will bear me out in that statement. This list is prepared by a very independent board of revisers. This board is composed of one gentleman appointed by the Provincial Government, who is the chairman, and two others who are appointed by the electors of each parish of a county. In this way the councillors when they are elected are revisers. They are the choice of the people from each and every parish. This board of revisers meets in September, I think, of each year and prepares a list of the voters, which is posted up in every public place in the province. A new list is made every year. After making the list, notice is given that the board will sit one month later, before which applicants can be heard as to the

adding of names to the list or striking them off. When this has been done by the board in November, the lists are filed with the county secretary, who makes a copy of the lists filed from every parish and every county of the province. He then notifies the sheriffs of the counties who go over the lists with him to see that they are true copies. The sheriff then certifies the list, putting his name on every page. There you have the official list for .the county, and on the first of January of each year these lists come into force and are available in case of an election being held throughout the year.
As to qualifications, we have manhood suffrage in New Brunswick. A man twenty-one years of age, whether he owns property or not, has the right to vote. We have also extended the franchise to women on the same basis. I think by the method I have described we get a perfect list. I have handled the lists many times myself, and I have never received a complaint from any candidate or any man belonging to either one party or the other, that the lists were not right. They are as perfect as they can be made, and I would therefore urge the minister to accept these provincial lists as the basis for the Dominion lists. I think every member of this House from the province of New Brunswick, no matter on which side he sits, will admit that the lists are as perfect as they can be made.


William Duff: I have not taken part in the discussion or any of the clauses of the Franchise Bill, and I would not have done so this afternoon if it had not been for the speeches I have heard to-day from certain hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia. I do not profess to be a politician, but I certainly have some knowledge of the manner in which the provincial lists are made up in the province of Nova Scotia. My hon. friend >(Mr. Lalor) smiles. I do not know how much he knows about canned beans, but I do know how- the electoral lists are made up in the province of Nova Scotia. I had the honour of being municipal clerk and treasurer for the municipality of Lunenburg for twelve years, during which time I offered to resign on two occasions, but I was presented with a petition signed not only by the Liberal members of the council but also by levery 'Conservative member, asking me to retain the position. While my business affairs would not allow me to devote my whole time and attention to the office, the council, Conservative members as well as Liberals, prevailed on me to stay, and I stayed in that office a

number of years longer than I had intended. I had custody of the voters' lists dur- . ing that time, and was in a position to know how the lists were made up. I had the confidence of both Conservative and Liberal members of the council while I was municipal clerk and treasurer.
The hon. member for Annapolis has told us how the lists are made up in the province of Nova Scotia. In my county we have a number of Conservative assessors and a number of Liberal assessors. We have also a number of Conservative as well as Liberal revisers of the electoral lists, and from my knowledge of the character of these men I would not like to stand up in my place and state, as the hon. member for Annapolis did, that we had unscrupulous assessors and revisers in Nova Scotia I have known Conservative assessors and Conservative revisers to lbe appointed in my county, and I want to say that they are just as good men as the Liberal assessors and revisers. I think I have some knowledge of every county in Nova Scotia, and I would not dare to say that in any one of those counties there were unscrupulous assessors or revisers. Any hon. member not a resident of the province of Nova Scotia, might think as he listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis that the municipal councils of Nova Scotia were made up entirely, or practically so, of Liberals. That is not the case. If any hon. member will go to the library of this House and look up the records he will find that about 52 per cent of the municipal councillors in the province of Nova Scotia are Liberals and 48 per cent Conservatives, In the hon. member's own county of Annapolis, in the last twenty-five years there has never been a majority of more than one or two Liberals in that council.


Avard Longley Davidson: It is quite correct that at the present time the Liberals are in a majority of two, but it is the majority that names the revisers, and the individual-councillor has not a chance to name his own officers. The warden in that county is the chairman of the Nova Scotia Highway Board.


William Duff: I was coming to that. I said a moment ago that in the hon. gentleman's own county there has not been in the last twenty-five years a majority of more than one or two Liberals in that council. The same is true of every other municipality. There are just as many Conservative revisers appointed as Liberal revisers. There are almost as many Conservatives in the
council as there are Liberals. In some counties the Liberals have a majority, while in other counties the Conservatives are in the majority. Take my own county, in which there are two municipalities, the municipality of Chester and the municipality of Lunenburg. In the municipality of Chester, until the last election, every councillor elected was a Conservative, and I want to go on record as saying that the revisers of electoral lists and the assessors of the county, appointed by Conservative councillors of Chester, were good citizens; and during twenty-five years that I resided in the county of Lunenburg we never had occasion to go to the sheriff or the deputy sheriff or any one else to complain that any one elector put on the list by the revisers of the electoral lists was not properly put there, nor that any Liberal electors were left off. In the municipality of Chester in twenty-five years neither the Liberal workers nor the candidates made one single complaint, and I say therefore that the way in which the lists were made up was fair. Now, how are the lists made up? The hon. member (Mr. Davidson) with his legal knowledge, endeavoured to show that it was a bad system, but in my poor language I shall try to put the matter before the committee. The municipal councils meet in January and appoint certain officers. This is the case in my county and I think this rule applies in most other counties. Every councillor has the privilege of appointing his own revisers. The hon. member said a moment ago that in his county that was not done. A committee was appointed, and a councillor for one district could appoint a reviser for another district. That may happen in hi's own county, but I am doubtful.


Avard Longley Davidson: What does the hon.
member say? I did not catch his remarks.


William Duff: I said I was doubtful.


Avard Longley Davidson: I desire the hon. gentleman to take that statement back. I can assure him that I have personal knowledge of the matter, and I do not think he has any right to cast aspersion on the veracity of any member of the House.


William Duff: 1 will not take back that
statement.


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask that the hon.
member withdraw it.


William Duff: I see no reason to withdraw the statement.


Hugh Guthrie: Order.


William Duff: Keep quiet Mr. Solicitor
General.


Hugh Guthrie: I will not.


William Duff: We made you keep quiet
the other night.


Avard Longley Davidson: In my county a committee of the council appointed by a majority of the council name the revisers of the lists. The hon. member says that that statement is not correct.


William Duff: I did not say that- at all.


Avard Longley Davidson: Well the hon. gentleman threw some doubt on my assertion. He said he did not believe it.


William Duff: My word is as good aS that of the hon. gentleman.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. gentleman say he did not say that?


Georges Henri Boivin: I understood the hon. member to say that that was not what he said. That is why I gave no ruling on the point.


William Duff: In imost counties in the
province of Nova Scotia the municipal councillors, whether Conservative or Liberal, appoint the reviser for the electoral district they represent. That is the way in which it is done, and if the hon. member says it is not done that way in his district I am not going to contradict him here; but as I said a moment ago 1 am doubtful.


Avard Longley Davidson: I should like to have a ruling on that, Mr. 'Chairman.
The 'CHAIRMAN:	I do not think that
any hon. member has the right to cast a doubt on the word of any other hon. member. I, therefore, do not think that the expression is quite in order.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I simply
doubt that the hon. gentleman's information is correct; I do not doubt his word. I have heard something of the way in which the lists are made up in the adjoining county to mine, the county of Annapolis, and I have as much right to express my views in that respect as the hon. member has. In most counties of Nova Scotia the municipal councillors, Conservative or Liberal, have been in the habit of appointing the revisers for their own districts. These imen make up the lists and do what they think is right. They put practically every man in the district on the lists. The hon. gentleman has told us about the property qualification and the income qualification, but he certainly knows that in Nova Scotia

that is not followed to the strict letter of he law. I know that in my county and several other? every man who is entitled to vote votes whether or not-
Mr. DAVIDiSON: The Blue Rocks?


William Duff: You had better not .bring up the Blue Rocks or I will show you what the Tories did there, and it is no credit to one of your friends. What about St. Peter's? I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that although it is quite true that in Nova Scotia the Franchise Act says there must be a property or income qualification, it is a well-known fact that practically every man in the district is placed on the voters' lists by the revisers. The hon. gentleman also told us that clergymen who came to the county could not vote for one or two years.


Mr. ICOWAN:: If these people in Nova
Scotia do not live up to the law why do they want us to adopt it?


William Duff: I cannot catch the hon.
gentleman's remark.
Mr. 'OOWAN:	Why ask us to adopt a
law that you do not live up to?


William Duff: I do not ask you to adopt
anything; you are going to vote for the Solicitor General's Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: I trust that after recess hon. members will confine their remarks to the subject before the committee.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


William Duff: When the committee took recess at six o'clock I was speaking to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), anl which had been replied to by the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). I was endeavouring to answer some of the remarks made by the latter hon. member and was interrupted three times, once by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan)-who asked me a fair question-and on the other two occasions toy the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis and the Acting Solicitor 'General respectively. I was discussing the manner in which the voters' lists were made up for the province of Nova Scotia, and I said whilst it was quite true that either a property qualification or an income qualification was necesvsary, yet in making up those lists the revisers did not adhere to the

strict letter of the law. I do not mean by that that they evaded) the law. I mean to say that under the existing law as it stands practically every British subject over twenty-one years of age is entitled to be placed on the voters' list for the simple reason-and I think I am safe in 'making this statement-that there is not one such man in the province of Nova Scotia who does not possess either of those qualifications. The hon. member for Digfoy and Annapolis then interrupted me with some remarks about "Blue Bocks." I do not know what the hon. member had reference to, but I wish to say to him that if he wishes to discuss "Blue Bocks," "Black Bocks," or "Back Woods," I am ready to discuss either one of these three matters with him at any time. If the hon. member desires to insinuate anything about "Blue Bocks," or any other place in my riding, let him be man enough to come out and state plainly what he means.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. member wish me to explain?
An hon. MEMBEB: Oh, it is you, is it?


William Duff: Yes, I wish the hon. member to explain what he means.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understand that at
the last general election at the Blue Bocks .poll, in the county of Lunenburg, there was a great deal o)f lawlessness and a great deal of confusion. That is what I had reference to.


William Duff: member for Digby and Annapolis said that in his 'County a committee of the council got together and appointed the revisers. Well, I am not going to deny that statement, because under the rules of the House we must accept what an hon. member says. But I think I am making a fair statement when I say that if, for instance, fifteen revisers are appointed toy the municipal council of the county of Annapolis, at least 40 or 45 per cent of those revisers will be Conservatives; that is to say, those revisers would not toe all Liberals or all Conservatives. That toeing the condition of things, the hon. gentleman's suggestion that the revisers were all Liberals, and that consequently the list (would be affected to the detriment of Conservatives, is not 'to my mind borne out by the facts.
In a number of counties I know that both Liberal and Conservative revisers are appointed. I am aware that in my own county and in the neighbouring counties not only do Liberal and Conservative councillors not follow strict party lines in making these appointments, tout Conservative councillors appoint Liberal revisers and Liberal 'councillors appoint Conservative revisers. And when we find that the two political parties do not confine the appointments strictly to their own supporters, it may be safely assumed that we are going to have 'a pretty fair list.
'These revisers, as I said, are appointed by the municipal council, they meet, on a certain day, and they receive applications for names to be placed on the list. In addition to those applications they examine the (assessment roll and place practically every name there on the electoral list. After that work is done there is another safeguard. But before I proceed further I might point out to the committee that the people in Nova Scotia, or in any other part of Canada for that matter, are not as the hon. member for Annapolis charged, unscrupulous. Let us take the oath which these revisers have to swear to before they proceed with their work. It is in this form:
We, the undersigned revisers for revisal section number	(or for the town of	),
in the county of	solemnly swear:
1.	That we will well and faithfully perform our duties as such revisers without fear, favour or partiality.
2.	That we will not place the name of any person on the list of voters for any polling district in said revisal section unless we believe such person to he entitled to be registered on such list.
3.	That we will not strike the name of any person off such list of voters unless we believe

such person is not entitled to he registered on such list.
4.	That we will in all respects, to the best of our ability, comply with the requirements of the Nova Scotia Franchise Act.
Sworn to by	and	
at	
I would not like to get on my feet and say that any man who took that oath would not discharge his duty to the very best of his ability whether he was a Liberal or a Conservative. I am sure he would discharge his duty faithfully and well.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are there Conservatives
in Nova Scotia, Mr. Solicitor General?


William Duff: 
Mr. COWAN:: But the law has to be broken to do it.


William Duff: Not broken, exactly-strained a little. Both Conservative revisers and Liberal revisers would want to see that these men got a vote; consequently their names would be put on the list, either by application or otherwise. I repeat, Sir, if we can save a large amount of money by adopting the provincial lists, and if neither party is hurt by the transaction, it is in the interests of this country that we should do so.


Mr. MARTIN:: I do not intend to object to what hon. members have said for the different constituencies in Nova Scotia except so far as Halifax is concerned. I wish to take exception to the remarks made on more than one occasion by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). He praises the provincial lists as highly as he possibly can. But, Sir, he does not know the lists of Nova Scotia; he has lived so long out of the province that it is hard for him to kn-c-w. I will say this:	that
in the county of Halifax the list is the best -padded list in Canada. I say further, Sir, that is no fault of the reviser, who, to my knowledge, has endeavoured, on more than one occasion to obtain a small grant from the local Government in order that the lists might be thoroughly revised. But they have always turned him down, for reasons best known to themselves. If, then, there is an opportunity to have a fair, honest and above-board list, let us have it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the discussion
goes further on this clause, I feel it my duty to point out to the committee that I am at

a loss to understand how electoral matters in Nova Scotia can be discussed on the clause now under consideration. I must remind the committee that while an amendment was suggested this afternoon, there is no amendment before the Chair, and in the absence of any amendment, if the discussion continues along the same line I will be obliged to rule that it is out of order.


John Howard Sinclair: I rise to point out that this is not a Nova Scotia question; it is a question that affects other provinces as well. As I understand it, the amendment of the member for Shelburne and Queen's-


Georges Henri Boivin: No amendment has
been moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.


John Howard Sinclair: What is before the committee


Georges Henri Boivin: 'Clause 32.


John Howard Sinclair: I presume that we are free to discuss the whole clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: And incidentally refer to proposals that are made for amending the clause. As I said, this is not a question for Nova Scotia; it applies to any province where there are electoral lists which conform to the requirements off the Dominion franchise, and I would like to see hon. members deal with it on its merits. It is not a new question. The Acting Solicitor General has been pointing out from day to day that certain questions that came up in this franchise legislation were dealt with in the old law. He seems to hold the view that the old law is a very perfect one; that any clause that was in the old law is a pretty good clause and one which merits the consideration of the committee. Now, the principle of using the provincial lists for the purposes of a Dominion election is an old principle; it has prevailed in Canada for twenty years. There is nothing new about it; it has been used for a long time.


Walter Davy Cowan: When the hon. member
says that this principle has prevailed in Canada for twenty years, does he except the .provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Territories, where the principle was never adopted?


John Howard Sinclair: If they did not adopt the principle in the western provinces, that was beqause they did not have regular provincial lists. It would apply to them if they had lists made by municipal councils or the provincial authorities. The
[The Chairman.]
principle is one that has existed for a long time in our franchise and it has worked well. No one will deny that it did work well. Did we ever have fairer elections than we had between the time this was introduced in 1897 and the election of 1917? The hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson), who found so much fault with this system, was himself elected in 1911 on lists prepared by those very revisers. He is a living example of a member being elected on lists prepared by revisers in Annapolis county. Annapolis for many years was regarded as a Liberal riding. He was elected on lists made up as he says [DOT] improperly by the revisors of that county.


Avard Longley Davidson: Excuse me-


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps I should not use the word "improperly," but that is the inference I drew from the hon. member's statement.


Avard Longley Davidson: -I said this afternoon that the sheriff made an unjust change of 193 in the lists in 1911. I fought a provincial election a few weeks afterwards, and was defeated by seven, so you can understand that it was the sheriff who defeated me.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not acquainted with the circumstances of which the hon. gentleman speaks, but if anything like that happened in the county of Annapolis, I would say to the committee that such an occurrence is very rare in Nova Scotia; I do not think he will find it anywhere else. We pride ourselves in that province on our fairness in matters of this kind. Our people have always been liberal as regards the franchise, and from the earliest history of Nova Scotia that has been the character of our people. Catholic emancipation was adopted in Nova Scotia before it was adopted in 'Great Britain; Nova Scotia was the first province in the British Dominions which emancipated Roman Catholic citizens and allowed them to vote and qualified them as members. That is one of the chapters of our history that we are proud of, and I am sorry hon. gentlemen in this House should find it necessary to besmirch the province from which they come. I could point out to my hon. friend that, when he says that we are all extreme partisans in Nova Scotia, if he looks back over the history of the province for some years back he will find there are no facts to substantiate that statement. He will find on the contrary that Conservatives have been appointed to high public: offices

by a Liberal administration. I can give him several examples of that, such an example as the Commissioner of Mines of Nova Scotia who <was a leading Conservative but was appointed by a Liberal administration; the Secretary of Agriculture of that province, who still holds that office and who belongs to a well-known Conservative family; the Superintendent of Education, who is also a Conservative and was appointed by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) when he was Premier of Nova Scotia and who still holds that position; Lieut.-Col. Cantley one of the Provincial Koad Commissioners who is a well-known Conservative and was appointed toy a Liberal administration. 'If my hon. friend looks over the list o'f King's counsel, he will find dozens of them, prominent Conservatives in the province, appointed toy a Liberal administration. I do not know whether my hon. friend is one of them or not, but I oould point out a large number. I do not want to dwell on this question too much as regards Nova Scotia, because I think my hon. friend, when he reads in Hansard what he has said this afternoon, will be sorry for it himself.
He made one statement which I should like, with the permission of the Chair, to correct. He said that the municipal councils of that province are partisan. I should not like that statement to go on record without being contradicted. I have the honour to represent the county of Anti-gonish in which the present municipal council is Conservative, and I would have no hesitation in accepting the lists which shall be prepared toy that council. I have *absolute confidence in their fairness. The statement made toy the hon. member for *Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was true to my personal knowledge regarding eastern Nova Scotia, that is, that the councillor for the district almost invariably nominates the reviser, and his nomination is accepted by the council. That is the case in the county of Pictou in which I live; it is the case in the county of Antigonish, in the municipality of St. Mary's, in the county of Guys-borough. With these .four counties I .am well acquainted and that is the prevailing practice in them. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) tells me that it is the prevailing practice in Cape Breton. Therefore in the eastern part of the province the municipal councillor for the district nominates the reviser, whether he is Liberal or Conservative, and that nomination is accepted by the rest of the council. What could toe fairer than that? There is absolutely no 149
complaint. Our franchise is so close to the Dominion franchise that there is very little difference. One might be able to point out some slight differences, but they are very trifling.
There are two principles on which I appeal to the Acting Solicitor General, and I think they are principles which ought to prevail with him. We have abolished patronage in this country. The Prime Minister ran the last election having that plank in his platform, and when the election was over he announced that that was to be the policy of the Government. This is a very important plum in the patronage basket, the appointment of all these registrars. I suppose there are perhaps from fifty to a hundred in each riding. I do not know how many there are in western ridings, but if I am not correct, some one will put me right. If we estimate that there are fifty in each riding throughout the Dominion-and that is not an excessive estimate-if you multiply that by the number of ridings in the Dominion, that means the appointment of over 20,000 men at the time of an election to do the work of enumeration. I put the ease on the ground that it is a principle of the present Government to avoid patronage wherever it can be avoided. The Government would avoid patronage by accepting the provincial lists where they conform with the principles of the Dominion franchise. That is one argument that should 'weigh with the minister.
The question of expense is a very important one. It has also been referred to. In Nova Scotia alone we have sixten ridings, There will toe more than fifty registrars in each of those ridings. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that .the average will be fifty. If we appoint fifty in each riding and give them a fee of one hundred dollars apiece, which will be the least they can manage the work for, that would mean an expenditure of $5,000. But that is not the whole expense, because typewriting and printing will have to be done, and there will be travelling and various other expenses which will bring the sum up to perhaps $6,000 or $7,000. Then each of the candidates will have to have a staff of men looking after his interests at all the polls in his riding, and we may take the expense of each candidate as at least $1,000. That will bring the expense for each constituency up to at least $8,000, and if you multiply that by sixteen, you get an expenditure of $128,000 for the province. That is a very large sum of money which we can save in one provinoe alone by

2,'340

adopting this proposal. Is not that worth while? What advantage will my hon. friend from Annapolis, or any other hon. member be deprived of that would be equivalent to the expenditure of $128,000 at a time like this when everybody wants to save money?' Last night I was asking for a very small suim of money to help build a hospital for sick sailors, and I hope I will get it. I was not asking the Government to assess the taxpayers of this country for the amount *required, but to collect it from the ships, but there was hesitation on the part of the *Government on the ground that "we were spending so much money. Here is a proposal by which we could save $128,000 at each election in one province alone, and no person will be injured by it. I submit, therefore, it should be adopted because, in the first place, it is a fair proposal; secondly, it avoids the exercise of patronage, and thirdly, it is a proposal by which $128,000 can be saved to the taxpayers of the country.
iMt. lOOWAN:	I have learned enough
about the introduction of party .politics into municipal affairs this afternoon from hon. gentlemen opposite to teach me that I do not want to have anything to do with the system they are advocating. To my mind one of the greatest crimes you could commit in this country would be to do just what hon. gentlemen opposite have told us has already been done in the province of Nova Scotia. I have learned from them and from nobody else that they have adopted provincial lists in that part of the country, and that those provincial lists are made up by municipal officers and revised by them, with the inevitable result that the whole municipal machinery in Nova Scotia is reduced to the ridiculous position of being run on a party basis, for that is what it amounts to. I can quite understand now why the villages and towns and cities of Nova Scotia are so small and unprogressive, because wherever you introduce party politics into municipal affairs you are going to get in the same position as they are in down in Nova Scotia. I do not know what kind of Liberalism we have in this House, but it is a mighty different brand of LitTeralis-m from what we have in [DOT]Western Canada. If you told the Liberals of the city of Regina that you were going to run the city on a system of party politics, you would be told that you were not going to do it on any account, that the loyalty of the people to their city was far above everything of that kind. The brand of Liberalism we have out there is based on

loyalty to our city, loyalty to our country, loyalty to common sense-and there is no common sense in introducing federal party politics into municipal affairs. I have heard some of the strangest things this afternoon from my Liberal friends opposite. Take, for instance, what the hon. member for Lunenburg said. It may be true, he said, that a lot of preachers may be disfranchised under their proposal.


William Duff: I said, a few.


Mr.   OOWAN@: Say that only one is disfranchised through moving from one constituency to another. He says, what difference does it make, because there will be just as many Liberals disfranchised as Tories? Te that the basis of Liberal enfranchisement, that as long as a certain number of Tories are disfranchised along with a certain number of Grits, it is all right5 I thought last week that the whole point they were contending for was that everybody in Canada should have the right to vote, but now, if Tories are disfranchised as well as Liberals, it is all right. Then my hon. friend from Antigonish and Guys-borough talks about the expense. He says it will cost an awful lot of money to adopt the minister's pro [to sals. Let us save this money, he says, by adopting the provincial lists. It is all right to save the money, but under that system many of our people would be disfranchised, as has been proven here this afternoon. The .fact that under the system which they are advocating a man has to reside in a polling division for one year means that thousands and thousands would be disfranchised; that is bound to be the result. In Regina we have, I think, about one hundred polling divisions, and the same is true of other cities of the same size. About the first of May, about one-fifth of the population in Montreal, Ottawa, and other large cities moves from one polling division to another, and under the system which hon. gentlemen opposite propose every one of these people would be disfranchised. My hon. friend says that his proposal would save $120,000, but I want to lay this down as my principle: the vote of a man is too sacred to be counted in dollars and cents. Hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon have been valuing the franchise at so many dollars and cents.
I have seen how the system proposed by the Acting Solicitor General here to-night works and I know it is absolutely all right. In the Northwest Territories, where I voted for twenty-odd years, we have exactly the system which the minister now" proposes

to introduce throughout the Dominion. We had enumerators, and if they failed or refused to put a man's name on the list, that man could go to the polls on election day and insist on being sworn, and then he could vote. If he took a false oath, he could be charged with perjury before the courts. That system has continued out there until the present time, for the Liberal party when they introduced their Franchise Act in 1896 or 1897 exempted the Territories from the operation of that Act, and when the provinces were created they again did the same thing, with the result that this system has continued in Alberta and Saskatchewan up to the present day. I want to say that cleaner or purer elections were never held than under that system. In no elections held in any other part of Canada under any other system have there been as few prosecutions and protests, nor as few complaints, because every man had the right on election day to go to the polls and demand to vote, and he got his vote and was satisfied. If that is what history proves, and it is, why should we' not adopt that system for the whole of Canada and give equal satisfaction to the people throughout the whole Dominion? I shall certainly support the proposal of the Acting Solicitor General.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope we will all he
good now, after the speech of my hon. friend.


Walter Davy Cowan: You should be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This lecturing comes
with great force from my hon. friend. I thought he was a Unionist in Regina, but here he is a Tory.


Walter Davy Cowan: Tory in politics and Christian in religion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is putting in full
time on his Toryism, but I am afraid that on the other side, if his little boy was asked if his father was a Christian he would have to reply: Yes, but he is not doing much at it now. That is the mongrel Christianity of my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not speaking of
the hon. gentlemen himself, but of his style of Christianity-" By their fruits ye shall know them." In spite of my many weaknesses I am perhaps just as strong a believer in the Christian faith as anybody on the other side, but when Christianity does not show any fruit I do not mind calling it mongrel, because it is mixed up with 149*
so much dross that it- is hard to find the real thing.
If my hon. friend from Regina is perfectly satisfied with the manner of making up the lists in Regina, there is nobody on this side of the House who has suggested for a moment that we should take away from him and the people out West the system they now have. If they are satisfied with that system, let them enjoy it to their hearts' content. My hon. friend must not forget that Nova Scotia was a flourishing province with splendid institutions, both municipal and parliamentary, while the bear and the prairie rabbit occupied the city of which he is so proud, and if we are anxious to hold on to these splendid institutions that we had long ago, while the bear and prairie rabbit were carrying on their municipal business as they thought best in and around the city of Regina, I think we have a perfect right to do so-just as good a right as my hon. friend has to hold on to the system that has proved satisfactory to him and his people. I do not mention the bear and the prairie rabbit with any idea of reflecting on the city of Regina, but I am simply pointing out that the people of the province of Nova Scotia with its splendid institutions are not going to be lectured by people who have not yet attained proper municipal institutions and proper methods of making up the voters' lists.
This is by no -means a new question. Since Confederation we have held in Canada -some thirteen or fourteen general elections. If my memory serves me well I think we have had thirteen. Ten of those elections were conducted under the system of franchise which we are advocating in regard to the making of lists, and only three were held under the system of registration or revising barristers as the case may be. When the Dominion of Canada came into being as such Sir John Macdonald, who I suppose had most to do with the drafting of the British North America Act, put into that Act the provision that until a franchise was prepared by the Dominion Parliament, the local lists in each province should be used. That arrangement continued absolutely satisfactory, as far as I know, to both Liberals and 'Conservatives down to the year 1885, when the Revising Barristers Act wras put through this Parliament after a very strenuous fight and the crossing of swords by such gladiators as Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, Hon. Edward Blake, Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and other men of that calibre who debated the question

further on the subject except that I hold my hon, friend (Mr. Butts) responsible for the doings of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's during the years that the latter -was Prime Minister of Nova Scotia because he supported him in his every action.
There has been a great deal of talk to the effect that we are not entitled to have the privilege of preparing those lists 'because for ninety years we were taking certain officials off the lists in Nova Scotia. That is a matter which dates back earlier than the administration of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, and since nobody seems to have given light on that point I will touch upon it very briefly, because we are told that because of the facts of history and of the partiality that is alleged to have been displayed in the past we in the province of Nova Scotia should not be given the power to prepare our own lists. It is well known that Nova Scotia was forced into Confederation absolutely against her will. In 1867 there was a general election in the province of Nova Scotia, and out of a Dominion representation of eighteen or twenty members one solitary man, the late Sir Charles Tupper, was returned to this House on the Confederation [DOT]issue. In the local legislature only two men [DOT]were returned on that issue, their names [DOT]being Blanchard and Pineo, and the names [DOT]of these three men will go down in history. That was the feeling of Nova Scotia in 1867 against Confederation into which the province was forced without the people being consulted. There was such a furore against anything from Ottawa that the Government of that day passed an Act that officials of the Departments of Customs and Railways- those were the only two departments selected, why I do not know-should not be allowed to vote. Of course, that law did not apply to the Dominion franchise. It was allowed to remain on the statute hook for years, and the Tory party when in power in 1872 and again in 1882 did not attempt to repeal it. I am proud to be able to say that in 1900 I had the honour of introducing into the legislature of Nova Scotia, .for the first time as far as I know, the Bill that repealed this disability. That Bill passed the Legislative Assembly but was defeated in the Council, but later it was re-introduced and passed both Houses. To cast this up to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is absurd, for he had nothing whatever to do with that disability. He was not in politics until many years after that Act was put on the statute books.

I have only to say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the exercise of the local franchise for fifty-three years with only one single solitary case of irregularity is a fairly good record. We have 18 counties in the province and several cities and incorporated towns, but the only single report of anything irregular in those fifty-three years is the case that comes to us from the county of Annapolis. I venture to tell my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) that if he had made complaint to the Premier of Nova Scotia an investigation would have been ordered at once, and the sheriff he speaks of would have been removed if found to have been remiss in his duty.
The extreme partisanship that has been referred to does not exist in Nova Scot*a. For fourteen years I was a member of the municipal council of my town; five of those years I was mayor; and all through the fourteen years, although we had a strong Liberal majority in the council, we had three good Tory revisers. Does not that prove to my good friend from Regina that we are not the outlaws he thinks we are, refusing to give any one an appointment unless he pronounces the shibboleth of Liberalism or something akin to it?
With the exception of the interval between 1887 and 1898, for over forty years we have had in Nova Scotia an absolutely local franchise, and nothing can be brought against its administration except one single questionable case. I think that that record justifies us in asking that we be left with a system in which we have absolute confidence. If any other province wants different lists, well and good; we do not want to interfere. All we want is to retain what we were promised by the memorandum that was handed to me and what we are accustomed to. I hope no such-mistake will be made as to tear apart every list we have and commence a new list which cannot by any possibility be satisfactory, under a system with which we are not acquainted and for the preparation of which there will not be sufficient time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will gratify my hon. friend in a few minutes. But if any hon. gentleman thinks that we are so kaiserized in this House that it is an offence for me to make these remarks let me assure him that I do not propose to be deprived of the liberty of speaking for my people because some hon. gentleman who has had his mind made up for him shouts "carried." That gentteman will have to settle with the hon.

member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), who has told us that some hon. members have no minds to make up because everything is settled for them. I shall cling tenaciously to our British parliamentary procedure and put my case before the House. If hon. gentlemen on the other side do not agree with me, that is their privilege under constitutional majority rule; but let me assure them that as there was of old an appeal to Caesar, so there will be an appeal to Caesar in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I have
heard for the first time from my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that some solemn pledge and undertaking was given to him by some members of this Government prior to the passage of the ByElections Act one or two sessions ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have the original
document here which I can pass over to my hon. friend.
Mr. GUTHRIE.: I would like very much to see the document. I must inform the committee that up till the moment my hon. friend spoke I was in entire ignorance of the existence of such a document.
The document has now been handed to me by my hon. friend. It is headed, as I assumed it would be:
Proposals for the Creation of a Franchise Act for the Purpose of holding By-elections until after the next Session of Parliament.
It does not appear to be dated, but I have no doubt that it was prior to the passage of the By-elections Act. The committee will pardon me if I read it; it is all new to me:
1.	The proposed legislation is contingent upon a public announcement by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons that he will not advise His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve Parliament until after another session has been held.
2.	Complete demobilization under the Wartimes Election Act shall be in effect on August 1st, 1919, and the Election Law as it stood prior to the War-times Election Act then to be brought into force with such amendments as may be absolutely necessary to meet changed conditions, including:-	.
(a)	The creation of machinery by which the names of women qualified to vote can be placed upon lists where none such now exist, e.g., New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario.
(b)	The adoption of existing permanent lists,
if any exist, in the respective provinces to which the women's names have been added. This probably applies to Nova Scotia and British Columbia.	.	,
(c)	The creation of machinery whereby lists can be created so that an election could be held within thirty days in any province where lists are not now complete, the most outstanding example being the province of Ontario,
where no lists exist, as a new law was passed in 1917, and no lists so far have been prepared under the law.
(d)	Where it is necessary either to make new lists or to add to the existing lists, that the principles of the local law of the province of Saskatchewan be adopted, which generally are as follows:-
Personal registration in cities and incorporated towns with a right of appeal to the County Court or District Judge and enumeration in rural committees, with the right to any person to swear in his or her vote on election day, in case the name has been omitted from the list made up by the enumerators, no ballots to be
tied up.	. .	,
(e)	Wherever officials, either municipal or provincial, now exist whose duty it is to prepare provincial voters' lists these officials should be appointed enumerators for the purpose of making the necessary additions.
(f)	No person of foreign birth, male or female, to have the franchise unless personally naturalized.	.
(g)	A Public Prosecutor to be appointed in each constituency whose duty it will be to prosecute all persons who falsely swear their names upon a list or swear in a vote.
(h)	This Act to continue for the purpose of by-elections until March 1st, 1920, unless previously superseded by a general franchise Act.


Mr.   OOWAN@: What is wrong with that?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I take it from
the heading that it was a proposal; for it is headed " Proposals for the Creation of a Franchise Act for the purpose of holding By-elections. until after the next session of Parliament."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And to be continued
into the new Act. That is not written there, but that is the intent of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh, hut I am not afraid of their laughter.0 That was the statement that was given to me by two ministers. It would be quite like them not to stand by it.


Hugh Guthrie: The first observation 1
have to make is that my hon. friend refers to this as a solemn pledge and undertaking by the Government which he accepted. Well, I think there must be some misunderstanding on the part of my hon. friend if he accepted that proposal, which distinctly says, in paragraph (f):
No person of foreign birth, male or female, to have the franchise unless personally naturalized.
If my hon. friend accepted that proposal, I cannot understand the speech he made a night or two ago. I think I am right when I say that this was really a proposal; it was to be the basis of a discussion between the Government and my hon. friend,



'2346 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
who was then the leader of the Opposition. But it could not in any sense of the word be regarded as a solemn pledge and undertaking which he accepted; otherwise he would never have made the speech he did the other night upon the question of the naturalization of aliens.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will
permit me, he may think that clever-


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not think it
clever.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The speech I made in
reference to the By-election Act was quoted here the night before last. If my hon. friend will do me the honour of reading the quotation he will see that I said: For the present we will accept this, holding to ourselves absolutely the right to criticize any franchise proposals that may be brought down; preserving all our rights intact. My speech was quoted the other night by the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and my hon. friend can see it at any time.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be all right. The point I make is that the document I have now read must, from its very nature, have been a proposal in regard to the Byelections Act and not in regard to the general Elections Act. If this is a solemn pledge and undertaking by the Government which he accepted-that is his own language-as the basis of a general election Act or as a basis of the present Act, then my hon. friend accepted an agreement in regard to the franchise for aliens entirely contrary to the opinions which he expressed in this House two or three nights ago. I think I am right in assuming that this document which I have just read referred only to the By-elections Act, and formed only what it says it is, "proposals" as to what legislation should be enacted in respect to by-elections. Now, I want to have a chance to confer with my colleagues in regard to the matter. I may be wrong, but from the circumstances and from the language of the document I think I am right in assuming that it was purely and simply a basis of discussion for the then proposed By-election Act and had nothing to do with the permanent Act. But if I find, after discussing the matter with my colleagues, that I am wrong, I shall be quite glad to say so.
My hon. friend also, during the course of his remarks, in discussing the merits of the Voters' Act of Nova Scotia, referred to a statement made in this House in 1894 [Mr. Guthrie. 1
by the late Sir John Thompson, when he expressed the opinion that the franchises in existence in the various provinces had become so nearly alike that there was not much object in maintaining distinctions as between federal and provincial franchises. Sir John Thompson certainly did make that statement. But he made another statement immediately afterwards which my hon. friend failed to read. Sir John Thompson said we could not continue any distinctions in regard to franchises, but he said also-this is on the same page of Hansard:
The great principle which underlay the Franchise Act of 1885 was the control by this Parliament over matters connected with the franchise. .	.	. We adhere to the principle
that this House and the electors who return members to this House ought not to be under the control as regards the exercise of their franchise of the officers of any other Government or Legislature whatever in the country.
That is the point that we are trying to maintain in the present Bill. My hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) discussed the question of provincial franchise and provincial voters' lists this afternoon and offered a suggestion which he said he would later in the proceedings move as an amendment. His object in stating the purport of the 'amendment at this time was that the Government might have an opportunity of considering it before coming to a conclusion. The suggested amendment was long and somewhat involved, and I would like to have an opportunity of giving it careful study before pronouncing upon it. But as I understand from my hon. friend's reading of it, it involves our accepting in Ontario as final and complete the provincial voters' lists of that province provided they are not more than a year old and that any names which might .be added to those lists or taken from them should be so added to ot taken from them by a board appointed by the Ontario Government for that purpose. That system is not very different from the system laid down in clause 32 of the Bill. Clause 32 provides that provincial lists shall be accepted, shall be the lists, where they are not more than twelve months old. If the provincial lists in Ontario are more than twelve months old, we must have new lists. The Ontario franchise and the Dominion franchise are not exactly alike; there are differences. I was very familiar with these differences a short time ago, but I have had so many franchise Acts in my head lately, that I cannot express a positive opinion at

the present time as regards the provincial Act. There were differences between the last provincial Franchise Act and the present proposals of the Government. The differences were not radical, it is true. There were differences in the requirement as to residence and matters of that kind; there were differences, I think, as regards the disqualification of Indians; there was a difference as regards the disqualification of officials. Then the Ontario Voters' List Act which is now in force differs radically from this proposal. There is a proposal before the Ontario legislature at the present time, but I do not know whether it will be carried in the form in which it was introduced or not. I know that in the preparation of that Bill the Ontario Government had the advantage of reading the proposed Dominion Bill and in many instances followed our clauses, but in many other cases they did not follow our clauses. The only practical difference as regards lists between what the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Boss) proposes and what this Bill proposes is this, that provided the Ontario list is not more than twelve months' old, under clause 32 of the present Bill names may be added to the list or struck from the list by a court designated by this Parliament, whereas under the provincial law this is done by a board composed of the county judge and some other individuals. I am not sure, for the moment, who compose the board, and I see the hon. member (Mr. Ross) who has a copy of the Bill, is not in his seat. As I have no copy of the Bill, I would like a little more time to consider that matter further. IBut the difference between the two proposals is not very great.
iMr. McOOIG: Provided that the Ontario lists have been revised in certain counties and not in others, would the lists be used in a Dominion election in counties in which the lists had been revised and would they not be used in counties in which the lists had not been revised?


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 32 reads:
For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province the voters' lists shall, except as hereinafter provided, he those prepared and completed for the several polling divisions, under the laws of that province, within one year immediately preceding the issue of the writ for such election.
Yes, I think they would.


Jacques Bureau: Is there any special reason for making the lists revised within one year?


Hugh Guthrie: So many changes take place after a list is one year old that it cannot be relied on; it is considered old or stale, and that is the object of having a one-year limitation. In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. MoCoig), I may say that in any riding in Ontario where there is a list which can be legally used for any election in Ontario and which is not more than one year old from the date of revision to the date of the issue of the writ, under this Bill that list will be the list for the Dominion election, and if names are omitted from it which should be added or if names should be stricken from it, the machinery is provided by this clause whereby that end may be attained. The question is-shall that end be attained by the machinery provided by clause 32, or shall it be attained by the procedure provided by the proposal of the Ontario Legislature when that proposal becomes law? It is important, as Sir John Thompson pointed out in 1894, that the House recognize the principle that it should control the individuals who have charge of the revision and completion of these lists. Apart from that single distinction, there is not very much in the proposal of the hon. member (Mr. Ross) which does not appear in clause 32 at the present moment. If we take the case where there is no provincial list that is not more than twelve months old, what does the hon. member propose to do in that case? If our provincial voters' lists are more than a year old, they cannot be used. I assume if such a thing should happen-and it has happened in Ontario-we would then be driven back to the provisions of clause 32 in its entirety.
Just a word now as regards the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) regarding the provincial voters' lists of Nova Scotia. There is perhaps greater objection on his side of the House to the proposal to accept as final and complete the lists of the province of Nova Scotia in regard to the lists of the province of Ontario. Rightly or wrongly, I gather only from what I hear from others, there exists on this side of the House a feeling amongst hon. gentlemen who represent constituents in Nova Scotia, .that the lists of that province are not as absolutely fair as my hon. friends from that province who sit opposite to me would have the committee believe. This may be a difference of opinion only; but certainly there is a deep-rooted feeling amongst hon. members on this side of the House from Nova Scotia that the .provincial lists are not

fair to them and are generally unsatisfactory. I state that because it is a feeling that exists and that must be recognized. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) goes further than my hon. friend (Mr. Ross); he says that the Government should accept an amendment which would provide that the lists, as finally revised in Nova Scotia by the provincial authorities, shall be final; in other words, that the Government, in passing its own Franchise Act, its own election law, should be bound by lists prepared by officials of another government, at the present moment not on altogether friendly terms towards this Government. The main objection that has been urged upon me by hon. members with whom I have discussed the question is this, that at the present moment the only valid Voters' List Act in Nova IScotia is one involving a property qualification. There is at the present moment before the legislature of Nova Scotia a proposal to make their franchise generally upon the basis of the proposed Dominion franchise. Whether that Bill will be passed or not and in what form it will be passed, I cannot offer a prediction; but in a copy of the Bill which I had the privilege of reading, I found some distinctions as regards residence, and some as regards other matters which have escaped my mind. But it is purely problematical what the Bill will actually be when it becomes law. The present Voters' List Act of Nova Scotia would not agree with ours at all. The requirements are entirely different. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) minimizes the property requirements under the present law in Nova Scotia but they are there, and they apply to man and to woman. That would not meet our Franchise Act in any respect. When the Act now pending before the legislature becomes law one might be able to form some opinion as to whether they meet us upon common ground in regard to the franchise; perhaps not identically the same ground, but approximately the same ground. We might then discuss whether or not we could to some extent or to any extent adopt the provincial lists in Nova Scotia. For my own part-I cannot speak for my colleagues because I have not had an opportunity of discussing this proposal with them-I would hesitate to adopt those lists as final and complete, and I will give the reasons that strike me. The appeal in the province of Nova Scotia is to the sheriff. Except in Scotland, I never heard of an appeal to the sheriff, and in Scotland the sheriff is a judicial officer.

Why the appeal to the sheriff in Nova Scotia, I do not know.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Because we have
eighteen counties in Nova Scotia and only seventeen county court judges. It was the only alternative. An appeal to the judges would not have met the convenience of the people.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be the reason, but it does not strike me as a very good one. Sheriffs in the province of Ontario as far as I know, are not lawyers. I do not know a single sheriff in the province that ever was a lawyer, and I think from what my horn, friend (Mr. Davidson) has said, that it is so in Nova Scotia. I do not know whether they have any qualifications to decide a legal point, and certainly legal judgment is necessary in deciding these appeals. I have been told that time and again it has been urged on the Government of Nova Scotia to allow the appeals to be decided toy the county court judges, and time and again that request has been refused. I think it is an objection to the system that the final decision rests with the sheriff.
But there is a far greater objection than that. In Ontario the sheriff is an officer accountable to1 the Attorney General's department and when the sheriff in Ontario wants advice he communicates with the Attorney General's department. I fancy the same system is in vogue in Nova Scotia. If a sheriff hearing an appeal is in doubt, he calls up the Attorney General. Now the Attorney General is certainly a very much interested individual, and if his voice is to govern, I think it might he termed a partisan voice. I think-this is only my own judgment-'that that system is defective, and I would not be disposed to ask the Government to accept a proposal of that kind unless better machinery for the hearing of these appeals was provided for. That would appeal to me to toe reasonable, and I trust it strikes the committee as reasonable too.
The only difference, then, between the Bill as drawn and the suggestion of my hon. friend this afternoon is this; The Bill as drawn says that in the province of Nova Scotia we shall accept the provincial lists if they are not more 'than twelve months old, and there shall toe power to add names to the list or strike names off it. In the cities and towns that will be before the judge, and in the rural districts before the rural registrar. If he acts improperly and strikes your name off the list we have put in the safeguard that on polling day you

can go and cast your vote upon taking the necessary oath, and you -will not be asked to put in what is known as a tied ballot. That proposal always has appeared to me to be a reasonable one. There is no way of depriving a man of a vote under the machinery provided in section 32. If a man wants to vote and is entitled to vote, there is no iway of depriving him of his vote. That, I think, is something in advance of any electoral Act we have had in this country before.
When we come to section 63 of this Act, which has been allowed to stand as dependent on section 32, I propose to move an amendment to safeguard the right which we give to an elector to vote on election day. The amendment is to this effect: That the elector must bring forward two resident ratepayers of the polling division who will vouch for him, who will take an oath that they know him and know that he is entitled to vote. I am proposing to add that since the Bill was introduced. It will leave the matter this way: that any man in a rural division who is left off the list through the evil mind or ill disposition of any official of the Government can go to the polls on polling day and claim the right to vote. He must 'bring with him two resident ratepayers of that division who are willing to swear that he is entitled to vote. He has also to swear it himself. His name is entered in the poll book with the names of his two bondsmen, and I do not think you will find in any rural division of this country three men who will perjure themselves for the sake of a single vote. I think that safeguard is almost absolute. In the city divisions the procedure is different. There we allow an appeal, and the appeal goes to the judge. If in large centres there may be more appeals than a single judge can attend to, we do not appoint an appellate court even, but the judge himself designates other persons, not necessarily judges, to form an appellate court. If my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) Nvill reconsider his own suggestion and will take from it those words " final and complete " he will find that my views very largely coincide with his, and I think the section is going to work out very largely as he desires if we leave it just as it is. I understand from hon. members from Nova Scotia that the lists there are prepared annually. We can safely say, then, that an election would fall within that twelve-month limitation, and under section 32 we would then be bound to accept that list. We will be saving the expense of making a new list. Then we provide as simple machinery as possible
to allow people to have their names added to the list, and opportunity is given to have names struck off. This is carried on by officers designated in the Act, and I think it is as fair a way as anybody could suggest,
I see the difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Davidson). I have heard it discussed by at least half a dozen members from Nova Scotia. To us in Ontario it seems little short of an outrage that by any possibility a man may have to wait three or four years before he can vote. If it so happens that he moves into a district on the 2nd of January, instead of before the 1st of January, he may be kept there almost indefinitely before he has a legal right to get on the list. My hon. friend from Lunenburg says: We strain the law a little in a case of that kind and we put these people on. But that is not the legal way of doing the thing. I was told by another member, and a high authority too, that on account of these peculiar dates that are adopted in the Nova Scotia law, a man may actually be twenty-three before he can vote, instead of having the right to vote at twenty-one. They may continue these restrictions if they like, hut I repeat, we must accept their list if it is not twelve months old. We are not going to allow, however, any class of people to be disqualified on account of difficulties of that kind with regard to duties; these people can have their names added under this section. There is an objection to what my hon. friend speaks of as municipal and provincial lists. We find it every day in the province of Ontario. Every man who is assessed is entitled to have his name on the list, and it is always difficult at election time to strike off the non-residents, and in large cities there are on the voters' lists the names of a great many people who are not legally entitled to vote. Men happen to own property but do not live in the division, and there is a great opportunity in the larger centres for what is known as "plugging." A man comes along whom nobody knows; he says "I am So-and-So," and no one can refute the statement, and he votes in the name of some non-resident. This cannot be done in rural districts and smaller towns where practically everybody knows everybody else. In the larger cities, however, it has been practised extensively in the past, and this is a matter for the consideration of my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross).


Mr. McOOIG:: May I draw the minister's attention to the fact that non-residents are always put in part 3 of the list?

Mir. 'GUTHRIE:	I can show my hon.
friend lists of last year where I can find twenty names of people non-resident in the division.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Possibly they have moved away.


Hugh Guthrie: A man is on the list today and he moves away to-morrow and his name remains, and that is what I object to. In a county such as my hon. friend represents, and in my own county, every one knows every one else pretty much, but in such places as London, Hamilton and Toronto we know that plugging has been carried on extensively by reason of the fact that names of non-resident electors appeared on the list. When the plugger comes along no one can dispute his right to 'vote; he casts his vote and away he goes.


Archibald Blake McCoig: That would be possible
under any circumstances.


Hugh Guthrie: Not under a list prepared here within forty days of the poll; you can strike off or add to it at any time. One of the chief advantages of this law is the fact that it will give an up-to-date list, and so far as I can see that list will be an absolutely non-partisan one. I do not see any ground for all the fears expressed by my hon. friend from West Middlesex, who must be nervous or must have qualms of conscience. Unless you begin on the assumption that every one is crooked I do not see what objection there can be to the law.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The minister says that a
lot of plugging has been practised. Well, that can go on under any conditions.


Hugh Guthrie: Not under this law.


Archibald Blake McCoig: This will not prevent personation.


Hugh Guthrie: Actually the list will
not be more than two or three weeks old when it is voted on, and any unknown names will be stricken off. Non-resident voters will go off and the names of those who should be on the list will be added. You will have an up-to-date list, a list prepared almost up to nomination day. It will be a last-minute list. There might be an exceptional case where an unknown man might work in.


Mr. PARDEE:: How many cases of plugging does the minister know of in his constituency? As a matter o-f fact there has been little plugging, and I think that the minister is exaggerating in that respect.


Hugh Guthrie: I should not like to give the -source of my information, but we have strong reasons foT believing that in 18% we lost the election in my riding
10 p.m. through plugging. I will tell my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee), when he puts his innocent question in that bland manner of his, that I could not teach him anything about the matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, I do not know what the minister means by that assertion, I am sure; but if he implies that I have ever been guilty of anything unfair, I desire to inform him that he is absolutely wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: You asked me the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I simply asked the minister how much plugging there had been, and when he says that he cannot teach me anything, I can only say that evil minds conceive what ought not to be thought of.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I do not like any assumption of innocence in this matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Nobody does.


Hugh Guthrie: We have been long
enough in politics to know what the records of the courts are.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You need not impute any plugging to me; I do not know anything about it.


Hugh Guthrie: You know as much as I do.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then God knows you
know nothing, so far as that is concerned.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we are on even
ground.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I think it comes with
very bad grace from the minister to make such insinuations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Archibald Blake McCoig: It is in very bad taste.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: Order;
I must point out that the minister has the floor.


Hugh Guthrie: If the discussion in
this direction goes any further I can also refer to the instance of the London election when-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well?


Hugh Guthrie: -an election was stolen from the Liberal party in 1887 by plugging;

and I know the experience in South Wellington in 1896. We always thought we lost the election by plugging by reason of the fact that the non-resident vote in those days was allowed, and the voters' list was full of names of non-residents whom we could not locate.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the minister connect me with anything of that kind?


Hugh Guthrie: I made my remark in
perfect innocence, and thought it would be accepted in that way.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I take it that way then.
Mr. G'UTHRIE:	I hope the indignation
has passed away.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so.


Hugh Guthrie: To get back to the
clause, Mr. Chairman, I say that the safeguards provided in this clause are the most complete that I have ever come across in an Election Act. I do not believe that a band of crooked election officials could deprive a man of his vote under this law if he wanted to vote. If he were deprived it would be because of his own carelessness. I do not want to see any objection in either of the proposals that have been suggested. I do not object to them except in regard to the machinery they propose in the way of appeal. I think we should provide for the Appellate Court here. If my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's will think the matter out a little further I think he will agree with me in that respect. Now, we will accept the lists of Nova Scotia provided they are not more than a year old, and I believe they are annually prepared. If the machinery here provided under section 32 is allowed to prevail in regard to appeal, I shall be willing to advise my colleagues to accept the Nova Scotia lists, under the condition, of course, that they are not more than a year old. As I say however, I think they are annually prepared in that province. Then we shall have our own franchise and any one who is disfranchised under the law of Nova Scotia could come to the appellate tribunal and be put on the list in accordance with our franchise. If names are improperly on the list they can be stricken off in accordance with section 32; and voters whose names are left off can on election day bring sureties or vouchers with them and cast their votes. That proposal I could accept. I could not however accept the proposal to make these lists absolute and binding, because I do not believe
it is a fair proposal in regard to Ontario. I do not think my hon. friend from West Middlesex and I are,so far apart on the general question but I would insist on the appellate machinery provided in this Bill. New Brunswick, I think, probably offers a Franchise Act more nearly coincident with the present Bill than any of the provinces. I have not read that Act for several weeks and possibly I may be confused as regards its provisions; but my recollection is that it is very nearly the same as this Bill. If their lists are annually prepared they will be accepted; I will accept them unhesitatingly; but I would not allow them to be final. I would allow people to get on those lists in the way provided under section 32.
Now we come to other difficulties. There is Prince Edward Island where they have no voters' list; we must prepare them there. Saskatchewan and Alberta have no voters' lists-I know in Saskatchewan they have not; we .must prepare them there. Other provinces have varying periods for preparing the lists-not annual preparation but longer periods. There the lists may be too old in every instance and we would have to provide the machinery to prepare lists. But, while personally I have had no experience whatever under the Saskatchewan law-I have never taken any part in an election in the province,-I am assured on all hands and by representatives, I think, of all parties, that in. the two elections that have been held under Saskatchewan law, there has been absolutely no complaint- no party has objected. The machinery provided by section 32 is very nearly the Saskatchewan law; it is adapted from the law o'f that province. If it has worked well there, will it not work well here? We do not want to lose control of the machinery. We are willing to accept your lists where you have lists; and where you have not, we give as fair a method as we know how to provide to get those lists.
I say to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's-who is now in the House-* that as in Nova Scotia they have an annual preparation of provincial voters' lists I accept that part of his proposal, but I cannot say I would accept the proposal to make them absolute and complete. If my hon. friend wants a plain statement in the Act that the provincial lists there shall be accepted, with power to add to them or take from them as provided by section 32, I see no reason why we cannot agree upon that proposal. Similarly in the province of Ontario; and I have had a better oppor-

tuiiity of reading the Bill now before the legislature of that province and a better opportunity of reading the motion and amendment which my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Boss) suggested. I think my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's sees what I am trying to arrive at. It has been pointed out in this House, and has been pointed out to me on other occasions by representatives from Nova Scotia, that under the Nova Scotia lists as framed for provincial purposes two years and even three years may possibly elapse before a man is legally qualified to vote. The dates are so conflicting, or the periods are so tightly drawn, that there is a possibility, they tell me, of a anan being twenty-three years of age before he can vote, even if he had only come of age just before the first day after the first of January in any particular year. As the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) pointed out, some men may be disqualified for two or three years by some residence qualification; under this. Act they would not. Now there should be an opportunity to add to the lists the names of these men; the provincial lists should not be accepted as final and complete. All that we ask is that machinery provided for that purpose, or for that adding to, shall be the machinery provided in section 32. But, as against some of the other provinces we will have to provide elaborate machinery because there are no up-to-date lists at all.
However, I am glad the discussion has taken place, and it may be continued for that matter. I cannot give the final decision in regard to the suggestions of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's and my hon. friend from West Middlesex; what I have stated on the matter expresses my own views.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not hear the whole of the minister's statement, but I think that what I did hear is perhaps the essence of the situation with regard to the Nova Scotia lists, and I am very glad that the minister is disposed to receive even 'n part the suggestions I ventured to offer. With regard to a man being twenty-three or twenty-four years of age before he can vote, I suppose that a man who became twenty-one years of age after the last Dominion election will be twenty-five years before he gets a vote. If you have an annual list I do not see what better you can do; I do not see how you oan devise any better system.


Hugh Guthrie: Under the machinery that we create a man who only became
[Hr. Guthrie. 1
twenty-one about two weeks before the election would get on the list providing he lived in the riding.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard, however, to the more important question I am very glad to have an assurance of the minister's willingness to accept the Nova Scotia lists for a certain purpose; but when he says that he will not accept them as final, and then goes on to remark that they ought to be added to or substracted from by the machinery he has provided here, does he mean that that will he done by the appointment of registrars?


Hugh Guthrie: No, because in the urban districts the application goes before the judge of the county, or in case more than one judge is necessary, before an appointee of the county judge. In the country districts it would be before the registrar; but in the country districts the matter is not of so much consequence, because a man who is not on the list can on polling day go and vote .anyway if he swears himself in. It is in the cities that the matter becomes more important because there is no privilege of going on election day and tendering the oath and getting the ballot. The point is this, as my hon. friend will see: The people of Nova Scotia say they have a grievance in the appointment of a sheriff as the revising officer. Sheriffs are not lawyers- I pointed all this out a minute ago-they have no legal qualifications more than the ordinary qualifications of a sheriff in serving a writ or a subpoena, or something of the kind, or the enforcement of the criminal law of the country; they have no education that will train them to decide a question of law in regard to the franchise. But the judges have. I understand from hon. members on this side of the House that time after time motions have been moved in the legislature to allow the judges to be the final court of revision, hut the Provincial Government refuse every time the request is made. They say, "No, we will stick to the sheriff." This Bill proposes that the judges, who are much better qualified to discharge this duty than the sheriff, shall act. Another objection urged upon me is that the sheriff is responsible to the Attorney General. The sheriff is responsible in Ontario. He belongs to the Attorney General's Department, and when the sheriff needs advice he asks the Attorney General for it. They tell me the sheriffs also do so in the province of Nova Scotia.	-


William Stevens Fielding: Why not?


Hugh Guthrie: Then if the case comes up for decision, and the sheriff asks for advice the Government that appointed him may and can remove him.


William Stevens Fielding: They can only remove him for cause.


Hugh Guthrie: For partisanship and
improper dealing. I do- not say that such actually exists, but the system is quite open to the charge that it may be abused. Now that can be removed if the simple procedure of this Bill is adopted. Why does my hon. friend object to this procedure? Why does he object to these appeals being heard by a judge or by some appointee of the judge? I think the judge would appoint a qualified man if more than one person is necessary for the decision of the question. The element of expense is utterly removed because we are going to adopt the provincial lists of Nova Scotia. The question of appeals will often involve some expense but not much expense; there will be a limited number of appeals in every riding. But that is what is urged upon me by hon. members from Nova Scotia, and it is not only urged upon me but it meets with my approval, therefore my judgment agrees with theirs in the matter. I think it most improper to ask an appointee of the Government, such as the sheriff, to decide these appeals when that sheriff knows that if he does wrong in the eyes of the Government they can cut his head off. They not only appoint him but they have the power to remove him. When he gets into a tangle or into a legal difficulty he asks the Attorney General and the Attorney General is the head of the department that is affected in connection with these voters' lists. That leaves the door pretty wide open for the charge that there may be wrong-doing some day and the possibility of that will be removed if the machinery proposed in section thirty-two for appeals or for additions to the list is adopted.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course there are a
thousand and one duties for which the county judge, or any judge, is qualified by his legal training, and for which the sheriff will not be qualified. But I believe it to be the experience in Nova Scotia-I understand it is so, I have not been of late years so intimately associated with the province by residence as formerly-that the decisions of the sheriff as a rule are accepted and very little exception is taken to those decisions.


Hugh Guthrie: What is my hon. friend's objection to what is proposed?


William Stevens Fielding: I am coming to that in a moment. While I admit at once that on a. thousand and one questions a judge is the more competent man, I do not think the mere deciding of whether Smith or Brown should go on the voter's list is a great legal question at all-it is a question that any honest and intelligent, layman can determine. That is why I do not think it is so vital that a judge should do it; that is one point. The next point is that my hon. friend says that the Government appoints him, and the. Government can dismiss him. Suppose I were to say that the Government appoints a judge, and the Government can dismiss him?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend overlooks the vital point, that the judge is appointed for life, and no government can dismiss him according to their displeasure. The same condition applies to the appointment of a sheriff. His appointment is permanent in the sense that he holds office during good behaviour. My hon. friend as a lawyer and administrator knows what that means. A sheriff cannot be dismissed because he has displeased the particular government of the day in connection with the electoral lists.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: No, no. I gave an instance of a sheriff who had been in office 43 years, but my hon. friend says the Government can dismiss him. That is not reasonable, for it is neither in accordance with the law nor with the facts. However, I do not want to press that point too far. There is some force in what my hon. friend says, and if there is any sincere belief on the part of any one that the decisions in Nova Scotia are partisan, and he wants an appeal, I will be perfectly content to have it said that in any such case an appeal shall be made to a county judge; but I do not want it to be made to a reviser, to a registrar or to an enumerator. I do not think it is fair that an enumerator appointed by a returning officer, who may be a partisan, and who is going to be appointed perhaps because he is a partisan, should be allowed to say the final word, I would accept that amendment that the lists of Nova Scotia as revised by the sheriffs shall be subject to appeal to the county judge. I do not want any man left off the lists who is entitled to vote. I want to point out to my hon. friend that while he emphasizes the appeal to the judge, as

a matter of fact the appeal is going to be largely to the registrar, for there are constituencies in Nova Scotia in which there are no cities at all, practically speaking, and it is only in urban centres that the appeals can be referred to the judge. I would accept with pleasure a provision for appeal from the sheriff to the county judge; but I do not think it is fair to take the appeal from the sheriff to an officer who is appointed mainly because he is a partisan.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think my hon. friend understands the Act. He speaks of an enumerator, but an enumerator has no power to make any final binding judgment in the matter. Let me put the case as it will be. We will assume under this clause as drawn that the lists of Nova Scotia are not a year old, in which case they become the voters' lists. Now, I am going to take a rural division. There may be some people who have come into that riding and lived there the requisite time, which is only 60 days, but although entitled to vote they are not on the list. They go to the registrar and ask to be put on. We will assume that he is a crook and does not want to do his duty, and says, "No, I will not put you on." That is not final. It would be a convenience to have the man's name put on. But supposing the officer is crooked and fails in his duty, all that man has to do on election day is to go to the polling station, take the necessary oath, and he becomes entitled to vote. If there was a final binding decision from the enumerator to the registrar I would oppose it; but we have safeguarded it, and I think it is the best safeguard ever embodied in a Franchise Act. In the urban division, as my hon. friend will see, the appeal is to the judge. I cannot make it any clearer. I could not consent to the sheriff being the final revising officer. What I said when my hon. friend was out I may as well say now, that whether well-founded or ill-founded there is a settled feeling on the part of hon. members from Nova Scotia sitting on this side of the House that they do not get fair treatment under the Provincial Franchise Act. I am told by some of those members that they are under a tremendous handicap at every election, and under the circumstances I cannot accept those lists as final. Those hon. members are convinced that they are right and it seems so eminently proper to adopt the course I suggest of leaving the matter to the judge that I do not feel that I need labour the point any longer.


William Stevens Fielding: What my hon. friend puts forward as an appeal or remedy does not commend itself to my judgment. Per-nap* it was discussed when I was not here, but the idea that a man shall be allowed to go to the poll and swear himself on at the last moment is to my mind a very objectionable feature of the law.


Hugh Guthrie: There has been a qualification of that. I propose, when this section is discussed, to add an amendment providing that two resident ratepayers of the polling subdivision will swear that a man is entitled and qualified to vote, and that he himself will swear the same, the names of the three will be entered in the poll book and he will be entitled to vote. I think that is a safeguard.


William Stevens Fielding: The whole idea seems to me to be utterly unsound. However, at the most the hon. gentleman is only interposing an extra cog in the machine. If the sheriff is partisan-and I cannot see any justification for taking that ground because his appointment is made by the local government; however, let us waive that; if there is any suspicion that- the decision of the sheriff is partisan-I would welcome any machinery which would take the case direct to the county judge, I do not care in what form, whether you call it an appeal or anything else. But I am afraid any machinery that will allow enumerators or registrars the right to strike off or put on names without the right of appeal to the county judge is not sound. Why not revise the Bill so that in case a man is dissatisfied at being left off the list he can go direct to the county judge and get a decision?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend objects to a man swearing himseluf on at election day. I am told that under the Nova Scotia Act one man can swear on 500 names.


Mr. McGREGOR:: That has been done
in New Glasgow.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know what
the hon. gentleman means.


Hugh Guthrie: That I can go to some
court or tribunal there and on my affidavit I can swear to the qualifications of as long a list of names as I like, and those names will be accepted.


William Stevens Fielding: In the making up of
the list.


Hugh Guthrie: The only man who can change that is the sheriff. That is a pretty easy way of getting on. That was permitted

under the Franchise Act of 1885 and was condemned as the most unholy thing in it. I think that the method adopted hy this Bill is much better.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend ignores the most material fact, that he can swear that list only if he can satisfy the tribunal that it is right.


Hugh Guthrie: And that tribunal is the sheriff.


William Stevens Fielding: He cannot by his own affidavit put men on the list unless he gives good grounds to the revisers, and if the revisers are not satisfied they will not put those men on.


Hugh Guthrie: If it is possible for one man to do that, can there be any objection to three men swearing to one vote? That is the proposal of this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I want tribunals established by law, not some individual to swear men on the list. The tribunals established in Nova Scotia as far as I know are fair and try to be just, although there are exceptions I have no doubt on one side or the other, human nature being what it is. But I come back to the point. I want to avoid trouble, and if a man is not on the list he should have an opportunity of being put-on. My hon. friend can devise any machinery he thinks best to allow a person to go direct from the sheriff to the county judge without the intervention of a partisan registrar.


Hugh Guthrie: This Bill permits that.


William Stevens Fielding: It does at a - later
stage.


Hugh Guthrie: No. If your provincial list is less than a year old we accept it. Suppose you are not on that list, and suppose you do not go near the registrar, you can go to the county judge. That is provided here. You can go with notice or without notice; you can go without any certificate. That is absolutely provided in the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: The registrar certainly has the power to add and strike off names.


Hugh Guthrie: Suppose he will not do it for you?


William Stevens Fielding: That is another cog in the machine,-that you can go to the county judge. I see no need of that additional piece of machinery.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not want to overload the courts, you know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I intervene to make a suggestion? The Ontario Government is introducing a Bill which will affect this proposed legislation so far as the preparation of lists is concerned. That circumstance has altered very materially the significance of this section. What the minister said this evening about the willingness of himself and his colleagues to accept as a basis the provincial lists also goes^ a very considerable way toward removing some of the very serious doubts so many of us entertained about the purpose of the Government in the section as drafted. Now, we have before the Committee different suggestions, one from the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), which the minister is prepared to accept in part and to consider further; one from the member for Middlesex West (Mr. Ross) which also the minister has expressed his approval of in part and his willingness to consider further. I suggest that before we pass this clause the minister might be agreeable to having a short conference with the member for Shelburne and Queen's, the member for Middlesex West, the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), with a view to seeing just how far-


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear my
hon. friend say: "Don't do it." I ask him if that is the spirit in which we ought to try to work out a Franchise Act?


Mr. CURRIE:: You would not be satisfied anyway.


Jacques Bureau: What do you know about it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We should all approach a matter of such great consequence as this in the spirit of trying to get an Act which will appeal to the people as being fair and just. A conference might help to remove a great deal of doubt and establish a wider ground of certitude; more could be accomplished in that way than by hours of debate here. What we have heard to-day suggests the possibility of our getting very much closer together on this particular section than I thought was possible when the discussion started. Let me illustrate just what I have to say, because I have Ontario more particularly in mind. When this Bill was introduced we had before us only the Ontario lists as prepared under the late Hearst Government. They were prepared on the system of enumeration, and as this section read at that time



it meant that if a general election took place within a year, the lists which we would have to use so far as Ontario was concerned would be the lists that the Hearst Government had prepared for the last election. If it did not take place within a year, or at any time up to November of this year, then we would have no alternative than that of the appointment by the Government of its army of enumerators to prepare the lists in accordance with the machinery provided by this Act. That, we all felt, would be dangerous and anything but satisfactory. Now, what has happened since this Bill was introduced. The Drury Government have come into office; they have thrown the old Hearst legislation to the winds, and are drafting a new law and providing for the preparation of annual lists. The minister tells us to-night that if that law is in force, then these annual lists will be used by the federal Government for the purposes of elections. That is an entirely different situation from that with which we were confronted when the Bill was first brought into the House; and, as I say, for that reason we are very much closer together than I saw any possibility of our being in the early stages of the discussion. In view of the attitude of the minister toward the suggestions that have been made from this side I feel that if he is agreeable to a conference of this kind, simply to smooth out the differences as between the different provinces, we should probably be much closer together at the end of an hour's conference of that kind than we would be at the conclusion of a prolonged discussion here.


Hugh Guthrie: No matter which way
we decide that point, the clause has to go, because if no lists are made within twelve * months by the province, we shall have to prepare new ones. In some provinces they have no lists any way, so we have to go on and consider the clause. But as it affects particularly, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario I quite agree with my hon. friend; we would let that aspect of it stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
aspect of it that 1 would like to have stand. In order to make clear the effect of the law as it would be if we passed this section, let me put a question to the minister. Assuming that an election were to take place in Canada within a year of the time the Drury Government was formed, that is, before November of this year, then that election would be held on the lists used in the last provincial election?


Hugh Guthrie: If they were not more than twelve months old.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If an election came before November of this year, the lists used for federal purposes so far as Ontario is concerned would be the lists that were used in the last provincial election. Now if the general election came in December, before the law now being drafted in Ontario was put into motion, then the lists would be prepared by enumerators in accordance with the provisions of this Act. without any reference whatever to the law that the Ontario Government is putting through at the present time.


Hugh Guthrie: No, unless lists were
prepared under that law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Assuming that the Ontario law were now passed and that lists were prepared under it by November or December of this year then those lists would be used?


Hugh Guthrie: They would be valid for twelve months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But if they
were not prepared until say March or April of next year and a general election took place before then, lists would be prepared under the provisions of this Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I understand that the proposal is that the Ontario Bill shall be passed and that the provincial lists for this year shall be prepared under it. I understand that they have to be prepared for municipal purposes in any case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I simply wanted to make the point clear.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the Ontario law will be in force by December next, anyway. There might be a month or two after November and before the new provincial lists come during which, if a general election were held, we might have to prepare new lists.


John Allister Currie: Do I understand that there is no appeal from the lists as prepared by Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, there is.


John Allister Currie: Because I would very
much object to that. Hon. members know that in the old days it used to cost us anything from $100 to $1,000 a year to look after our lists. Why should members of the federal House have to provide the machinery for the revision of lists for Ontario? When hon. gentlemen opposite were in office and had charge virtually of all the clerks and

all the printing shops, when we had our lists revised and fixed up they would go to the printer, and then, when they were there they would be hocus-pocussed and a lot of old Conservatives would find themselves without votes. I would not agree to any such proposal as that there should be a constant revision of lists by members of this House. There must be revision before a general election; that is sufficient. Now hon. gentlemen opposite are asking for a conference. Of course, it is all right enough to ask for a conference; it is all right to compromise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not asking; I am making a suggestion.


John Allister Currie: I have the floor for the moment, if you please. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have a conference and then they would go before the country and say that they forced the minister to give them this fine election law. For it is a fine law. I do not agree with any hon. member who wants to have a special law for his own province. The law should be the same for all provinces. There should be no difference; no distinction. An appeal should be provided for a man at the last moment who has been, by some means, deprived of his vote. I am not going to put confidence in the Government of Ontario. The gentleman who leads it has been looking after voters' lists in my riding, and I know how difficult it is to keep track of him; he is a past master in the art of dropping names from the voters' lists. It may work out to the advantage of the public that there shall be an annual list for which the municipalities pay. The fact of the matter is that the Government at Toronto is unloading the expense of preparing its lists. I cannot see that there is anything to be gained by going into any conference, if [DOT] this Bill is satisfactory and if hon. gentlemen opposite can bring forward no valid reasons or grounds for complaint. I have listened for hours to hon. gentlemen opposite discussing the matter, and I do not see any valid objection that can be raised. In particular, I see no objection to the way in which the list is handled in Nova Scotia, and I cannot see any reason why the list there should be handled differently from the way in which lists are handled in the other provinces. Moreover, I cannot see why my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is so anxious that the sheriff should have all the say in regard to this matter; there is something wrong, there is something suspicious 150*
in all that clamour to have the sheriff do this work. For that reason I would object to that, and if I were the minister, I would not concede that point. If hon. gentlemen opposite are determined to fight the matter out, let them do so; but as regards holding a conference, the conference might not last five minutes; my hon. friends might say: Change one or two words here and there and then the clause will be all right; and then they would go broadcast over the country and say that they forced the Government to give them this law. The Government is responsible, and if there is anything wrong in this measure, I would say: Let the onus rest upon the Government and let the Opposition assume no responsibility for it.


Jacques Bureau: It is refreshing to listen to my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) and to size him up by his own opinion of others and how he views questions of this kind in the House. He is responsible for his actions, so let him take the responsibility for it.


John Allister Currie: We have responsible Government.


Jacques Bureau: What I rose to ask is this: The Acting Solicitor General has spoken about every province except Quebec. I asked him why the one-year limitation was inserted, and he replied that the lists might get stale, and there is something in that contention. But this is the position. I understand the first object of the law is to facilitate the franchise to people. In Quebec, we have this condition, that the lists in the large cities are revised only every even-numbered year. Every year in rural municipalities and in towns and villages the lists are made by municipal councils, and the question of plugging could not come up with us, because the lists are made from the assessment roll, and the assessor has to indicate on the assessment roll who is a resident and who is a non-resident. A man who is a non-resident under the Quebec Election Act has no right to vote.


John Allister Currie: When did that change take place?


Jacques Bureau: I think the change was made two years ago.	[DOT]


Mr. DENIS:: Four years.


John Allister Currie: In every other province dual voting has been abolished for the last twenty years.


Jacques Bureau: What is the difference?


John Allister Currie: This shows how Ear you are ahead of u-s.


Jacques Bureau: Do not think you are virtuous Ontario as against Quebec when you come before the House and accuse one another of plugging and stealing elections and stealing ballot boxes and having to pay money. Why, my hon. friend is a self-confessed man who has to spend money to make his lists.


John Allister Currie: I do.


Jacques Bureau: Why?


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend is a lawyer and can look after his lists. I have to hire an attorney to look after mine.


Jacques Bureau: I do not have to hire an attorney or anything else. The list is passed and the man who finds his name is not on the list goes to the revising officer and asks that his name be put on. In rural municipalities the council sits as a court of revision, if you like, and people appear before that court. I am not put to any expense in the matter except as regards postage for writing to some fellows telling them to look up the lists and see if their names are on. But be that as it may, if you want to facilitate the franchise, you must have something to start on in large cities because, if you have no names on the lists to start with, and you post up notices and tell the people to register, names are going to be left off.


Hugh Guthrie: In London, England, in New York and similar places, that is the way in which the lists are made up, namely by personal registration.


Jacques Bureau: That may be. If you
accept the last list in the .rural municipalities, why not accept the last list used in a provincial election in the larger cities?


Hugh Guthrie: How old might the list be?


Jacques Bureau: It would not be over
two years old. In Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe and Hull, the lists are revised in March or April of every even-numbered year.


Hugh Guthrie: Then you would have
to see to it that an election took place every odd-numbered year, and in that case 1923 wmuld be all right because then the list would be only one year old.


Jacques Bureau: The matter all depends
on the month. If you had an election in July, my list -would be no good.


Hugh Guthrie: Make it September.


Jacques Bureau: If you have it in February, 1922, I would be in the same position, because the revision is in the even-numbered years. Last year the lists were revised in March or April, I forget which. If you have an election in June, 1921, my list is no good and you have to start with absolutely nothing. It is only fair to make an exception in these cases that the last lists in large cities which have a revision every even-numbered year 'shall 'be the list to be used. Then you will have something to start on and names can be added or struck off. I am not objecting to the appeals at all, but I want something to start on; and if you do not accept these lists, you would start without a single name and you would have to bring the people to the registrar and have them register. That is a new departure; we have had no election under that system except the one in Quebec East; and a great many people would lose their votes. I would not ask the minister to accept lists two years old when lists one year old or less than that can be had, but we could make the exception in the case of large cities by adding after the words: " for the purposes of provincial elections" the words "except in such cities where revision of lists is biennial." That would cover Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe and Hull.


Hugh Guthrie: Are those the only
places?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, in our province.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member's suggestion is that in those places the last list should be the one to be used with power to add to and strike off as in this clause.


John Allister Currie: In Ontario, in a number of cities and towns, as a matter of fact, 'the list is nearly a year old. The list is prepared from the assessment roll, and the list that is prepared from the assessment roll in Toronto is a year old before	it appears before
the public. The same thing is true of one of the towns in my riding, and I think the same is true of Guelph, but these lists just form the basis and they are pretty nearly within the year. 'If we are going to have exceptions made for everywhere we shall never get anywhere. We must have a general law applicable all over the Dominion. As a matter of fact, if I were appointed an enumerator in Montreal I would certainly start with the old list.


Jacques Bureau: It is easier to start with the old list than to get voters to register.


John Allister Currie: You would know the voters who lived in the wards.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think this is an exception. It is kind of general. Here is a class of cities-[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: It may be a broad exception, but it is an exception.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queen's):: In discussing the question of accepting provincial lists the minister referred to Prince Edward Island and said we had to make a list for that province as there was no list there. I cannot see why the minister comes to that conclusion. I was rather amused at the controversy between the hon. members (Mr. Currie) and (Mr. Bureau), each claiming that his province' was ahead of the other. I think the province of Prince Edward Island is further advanced than any other province, because we did away with lists entirely over twenty years ago. We have, of couree, qualifications for voters. I can see no reason why there should not be uniform qualifications all over Canada, but I would ask the minister to follow at Dominion elections the method of voting in force in the different provinces. In Prince Edward Island the voters know their qualifications. They are posted up in the proclamation, and the voters go to the poll and vote. It is true that we have very few of an alien population. About 95 per cent of our electors are residents of many years standing and they are well known. To make a list for Prince Edward Island would simply be doubling or trebling the cost of holding the election there. There are only four constituencies, and I cannot see any purpose in going to an expenditure of $20,000 or $25,000 in making a list that is absolutely of no use so far as the pronvince of Prince Edward Island is concerned. If the minister would look at the (qualifications required for the local legislature, and the method of holding provincial elections in the province, I think he would see that nothing could be gained by making a list for our province.


Hugh Guthrie: Are there no property qualifications in your franchise?


John Ewen Sinclair: I hope the minister has caught my point, which is that the qualifications of voters should be the same all over the Dominion, but that the method of holding the election should be that followed in each of the provinces, so the oualification of voters does not apply to
the point I am making. The qualifications are as follows:
Every person shall be entitled to vote at an election to be held for the election of an Assemblyman to represent in the Legislative Assembly of this province, any Electoral District: If such person
(a)	Is of the full age of twenty-one years on the day of the election, and is not by this Act or any law of the'province disqualified or prevented from voting; and
(b)	Is a male British subject; and-
Then follow further qualifications, for instance, if the man has paid his poll tax for the year preceding he is entitled to vote, or if he is the owner of a freehold estate.


Mr. MORPHY:: How much is the poll tax?


John Ewen Sinclair: Two dollars. He must have his receipt for that poll tax. If he has that, and is a British subject twenty-one years of age, he is entitled to vote.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are there any property qualifications?


John Ewen Sinclair: That does not matter if he has paid his poll tax. If lie' is above the age when the poll tax is payable, there are other qualifications. In Prince Edward Island, for instance, where the people are not mixed with aliens, and where everybody is well known, I see no reason why the minister should not follow the method of holding the poll that is to be adopted in the provincial elections. I think the expense of making these lists is not justified so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned. You could have the same qualifications of voters all over Canada, but the method of holding the election should he one used in the different provinces at provincial elections.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there any residence qualification?


John Ewen Sinclair: They must reside in the province twelve months and in the district one month.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is no list made of those who are entitled to vote?


John Ewen Sinclair: None whatever.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What protection is there against people from other districts coming in to vote?


John Ewen Sinclair: The candidate's
agents are at the polls and it is their duty to see that nobody votes who is not entitled to vote in that division.
[DOT]2360


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There are no lists in a
city of 20,000?


John Ewen Sinclair: We have no cities of that size.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Has not Charlottetown
a population of about 15,000?
Mr. J. E, SINCLAIR: Only 12,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And there is no trouble?


John Ewen Sinclair: None whatever.
There was more trouble with the lists in 1917, the people not being acquainted with registering themselves, than we had in all previous elections over a number of years.


Peter Francis Martin: What is the time allowed previous to an election for paying the poll tax?


John Ewen Sinclair: It must be paid the year previous to the election. The poll tax for the year is not due until December, so if an election was held in September they would have to show the receipt for the year previous.


Mr. McISAAC:: There is what I might
call a double franchise in Prince Edward Island. One half the members of the legislature are called councillors, and the other half are called assemblymen:	That arog*
in this way: We had a legislative council there at one time, and it was a very difficult thing to abolish, because the councillors naturally were reluctant to abolish themselves. The Prime Minister, however of that day, introduced a Bill, and we must assume that he talked nicely to these gentlemen of the legislative council, twelve in number, and told them: You will be councillors still after you have abolished your chamber; you will be elected to the assembly. In that way he managed to persuade these councillors to abolish themselves, and from that day to this we have the peculiar condition of having councillor electors and assemblymen electors. The councillor electors require a property qualification amounting to $325, and those who vote for the assemblymen must have paid their poll tax; it is practically manhood suffrage in their case. When, these two classes of members elected to the legislature come into the chamber and take their seat, no one can tell which of them is councillor and which an assemblyman. There are fifteen electoral districts in the province, and each district sends one councillor and one assemblyman to the legislature. A not very strong party man might be disposed to attempt to cross his votes, but he cannot do it very successor. J. E. Sinclair.]
fully in this case. He has to vote for councillor and for an assemblyman if he polls two votes. He is not allowed to vote for two councillors or two assemblymen, but for one of each. That is the peculiar condition we have in the province so far as elections to the legislature are concerned.
As to the manner of holding the elections and the preparations therefor, there are no lists. The districts are mostly rural and everybody is supposed to know everybody else. Charlottetown has a population of 12,000 and there are incorporated towns and villages, but generally speaking the people know one another pretty well, and the candidate's agents are supposed to know who are entitled to vote. For my part I think it is rather a chaotic and precarious way of carrying on an election and I am in favour of having lists of some description. Every one who is qualified to vote for an assemblyman-that is to say, every one who is twenty-one years of age and has the other necessary qualifications as to residence, poll tax, etc.,-is qualified to vote for members of the House of Commons. As regards women voters, I may say that, so far, women have not been allowed to vote for members of the provincial legislature. In the Dominion elections in 1917, of course, it is well known, certain women were given the vote. Under this Act they will be given the franchise, and that fact of itself, in my opinion, should be a cogent reason why we should have voters' lists. I should not like to see elections carried on in that province, especially for members of the House of Commons, in the rather antiquated way in which they have been conducted for the legislature, without lists. I do not think it is a proper way, and for my part I am quite satisfied to have this clause go through as it is. The Bill generally, I think will meet conditions in Prince Edward Island, so far as I am able to judge; and I think I am safe in saying that- it will be generally acceptable to the people of that province. I do not think it would be well to continue, in the election of members for the House of Commons, the practice in vogue in Prince Edward Island in connection with the election of assemblymen, for I think it is very much behind the times.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Hugh Guthrie: Do I understand that
you retain the names of non-residents on your list?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: That is objectionable. Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:	The reviser is
instructed to put every man and woman on the reviser's list, if he finds that they are qualified by the assessment roll to the extent of $160 real estate and $300 personal estate. In the case of fishermen it is $150, which represents boats, nets, etc. So that every class of person in the province who has anything in the way of property is covered. There is a provision that absence up to .four months in the case of an income voter does not interfere with his qualification. Under our law a student who is in college is regarded as living at home, and provision is made for sailors. When you come to deal with all these cases, therefore, the question of residence does not amount to much.	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I have been informed
that under the system whereby voters' lists in Nova 'Scotia are prepared, a resident in that province can go to the reviser and by his own affidavit swear on the names of, say, 100 men, and the reviser has no option. He must accept that oath and put those names on. There is an appeal against that to the sheriff, but the difficulty is to find the men. Where they have to be notified and have personally to appear you cannot prosecute an appeal because you 11 p.m. cannot find these men to give them notice. That has been represented to me as one great objection to the system in Nova Scotia and I should like some information.
Mr. J .H. SINCLAIR:	Does the minister say that the men must come personally and apply for themselves in every case? If so, it is going to be very difficult to comply with the law.


Hugh Guthrie: I asked the question
about your law; I do not know anything about it.


John Howard Sinclair: It is true that one person who knows the facts can apply for another person in the province of Nova Scotia. But when my hon. friend talks about one hundred persons, I must say that I do not know of any such case as that. I might know the qualifications of my brother, say, or any man who works for me, and if he were not able to apply personally I could apply for him. That is reasonable, and there may be cases where one man would be better qualified than any one else to make application for a number of men. Take such a man as the cashier of a coal company, or some man who keeps the books of a company and who knows the incomes of the men and their qualifications, the qualifications for income voters, I may remark, is $260. I see no reason why a man who is, let us say, a paymaster and knows all the facts, should not be allowed to make an affidavit. There may be such cases where one man would apply for a number of other men, but it is only in an exceptional case that a man will not be able to go himself and make application.


Alexander McGregor: I would ask the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr Sinclair) if he thinks that any one man would have sufficient knowledge of five hundred individuals to be able to swear to their qualifications? Yet under such affidavit five hundred names would be added to the list, as was done in the towns of New Glasgow and Trenton.
An -hon. MEMBER: Five hundred?


Alexander McGregor: Yes between the two towns.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the difference between a man swearing for one ot for fifty or a hundred, if he has the knowledge? It is admitted all around that it is convenient that one man who has a knowledge of the qualifications of another should make an application for him. We know very well that lots of people are very indifferent as to whether their names are on the list at all, so the poor politician has to look out for himself and see that the names of those perons are put on the list. Our law in Nova Scotia at one time was that each individual had to make application for himself. It was found, however, that the law was not lived up to, that people would not comply with it and it had to be changed. Under the change made one person can

make affidavit as to the qualifications of another. But that is not the last word in the matter. All that enables one to do is to give the names to a reviser.


Hugh Guthrie: And he is bound to accept them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the province of Nova Scotia the reviser is not bound to accept the affidavit at all unless it is handed in to him before the twentieth day of January. Very well supposing the names are put in before the twentieth day of January-which very seldom happens because people are not so much on the alert as they should be-the reviser is bound to put those names on his preliminary list. That preliminary list goes through a great many evolutions before it reaches the sheriff. It has to go before a court of three revisers who sit on a certain day and hear evidence as to whether the parties are qualified or not. If I object to anybody who is on the list I can notify him. I am not bound to notify the fellow who made the application for him. I can either notify the man who made the application for him or the man himself by sending him a letter, posted prepaid, to his last known address. Then I can go to the revisers' court and say, "There is a man on the list who should not be on and if I can show by evidence that that man is not qualified his name goes off. Now that list which is prepared by the revisers' ,court must be signed by the three revisers. The three of them sign it and put a certi-ficatae on it that such is their decision as to that list. One-half of those who were on the preliminary list may have been struck off, but if there is anybody dissatisfied with the decision of that board he has the right to appeal to the sheriff. The three revisers are seldom of one political complexion. I do not remember ever seeing a board with three Liberals or three Tories except for the fourteen years I was in our town council when we had a Tory board. But there was never any trouble; they were honest men and they did the right thing. It is a mistake to think that because a man hands in a name bo one of the revisers that is the end of it; there are three or four sittings before the list is signed by the three revisers. All three, honest and capable men sitting in that way must be satisfied that the list is all right before they sign it.


Alexander McGregor: What would you do in a case where you could not find the man who made the affidavit, where in fact there was no such man in existence? In the case I have referred to the name was John Smith and there was no John Smith.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not care a button about the man who made the application if I could find the man whose name was on the list-that is all that is necessary for me.


Alexander McGregor: Suppose you could not find him either??


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I could make application to the board and prove that the man's address is unknown->1 put my evidence before the board, and if they are honest and capable men they will strike the name off. I can say, "There is no such man in existence, this thing is a bogus application, this man should go off the list.," and surely if I could satisfy a board of three capable, honest men-such as I have no doubt you would find on the board in New Glasgow- that would be all that would be necessary. I cannot conceive of having a revising board, for example in the town of New Glasgow, that would not do the square thing about the voters' list. I appeal to my hon. friend (Mr. McGregor) who comes from New Glasgow as to whether that is not the case? I do not know of any town in Nova Scotia, Pictou or anywhere else, where we could get three honest men who would solemnly take their oath and sit down and revise the list, who would do anything that was crooked in the performance of their duty. I put it up to my hon. friend (Mr. Mcgregor) whether he thinks for one moment that Sheriff Harris of the town of Pictou would be party to anything crooked about the list. Now I put it up to him to say whether Sheriff Harris is not square in his dealings?


Alexander McGregor: I want to say to the hon. member that the revisers of the town have no option in the matter whatever: they have to take the affidavit. Nobody knows that better than the hon. member who has just taken his seat. As to the sheriff he can only deal with these cases when the men are brought before him. You cannot bring the men before him because in many cases they do not exist. But they turn up at election day, and that is the reason their names are added. _


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member need not put supposititious cases to me. As to putting on the list the name of a man who was sworn to as having the qualifications and being qualified in every respect, and then not being able to find him, I never heard of such a case. If there is such a case in New Glasgow it stands solitary and alone as far as I have heard.


John Allister Currie: For the benefit of the hon. member, let me tell him that the system

referred to is a very old form of (political corruption that used to have much vogue in the province of Ontario. In so stating I am sorry the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is not here-with apologies to him, I may say. What has been complained of is what is known as the colonizing of voters. We have done away with the property qualification. When we had the property qualification in the case of a man who owned a large number of town lots, the system was to put names down as being the owners. Those names would be handed in and would be put on the voters' list the same as they are in Nova Scotia, but that difficulty does not exist and such names will be struck off the list. In the old days a lot of names could be put on the list but you could never find the men although they always turned up on election day. There were a lot of those chaps and they wrould vote according to the way the man who paid them wished. That is an old form of corruption. Where you have dual voting and property qualifications you are almost sure to have colonization of voters.


Jacques Bureau: An Ontario virtue.


John Allister Currie: Take the city of Montreal. A friend of the hon. gentleman told me the other day that in the good old days he could give as many votes as he wanted in this way for members of Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: He was boasting.


John Allister Currie: He did not have to do
much boasting to do that. He could just ride around and if there was property in each riding he could vote in respect of it. That is what we call colonizing. The names of foreigners used to be used for the purpose, and when the foreigners were brought in why, "All coons look alike",-you could not tell whether they were qualified or not.


Jacques Bureau: Well, the coons are going to get the vote this time.


John Allister Currie: Now, in Ontario we have one man one vote, and the individual must be pretty well identified before he can vote for a member of the House of Commons. There is no. merit whatever in the claim of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) because what he has reference to is an old form that used to be followed in the preparation of the list many years ago, and it was characterized by the most rampant form of corruption that this country had ever seen. What we call the colonizing of voters is not possible under this Bill. That
the hon. member should make any such proposition is to my mind very surprising. It shows that he is not familiar with what has been done in various parts of the country if he insists on having such a provision in this legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not understand what the hon. member means, when he suggests that I have any knowledge of any such corrupt system. I never heard of it in the province of Nova Scotia, it does not exist. If there are such things carried on in the province of Ontario I am very sorry for the old, well-settled and reputable province if that is the fruit of their Christianity and civilization. We have no records of such corruption in Nova Scotia. I was simply pointing out the way by which honest men get their names on the list. If my hon friend doubts my word, I challenge him or any other hon. member to produce any statement of mine in this House that was not well founded on fact, for I am too sensitive of my honour to make any statement except what is absolutely true.


John Allister Currie: I do not dispute the statement of the hon. member that he is justified in his remarks; but to have a gentleman of his standing propose The insertion of a clause in this Bill that would permit the commonest form of corruption that is known all over the United States and England as "colonizing voters" is to me very surprising. That system has been abolished in every decent community. Why, twenty years ago that is how Tammany Hall used to carry New York.


Jacques Bureau: Is that where you got
your schooling?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know of no corruption. In the town immediately adjoining where I live, Sydney Mines, there are 5,000 or 6,000 men employed, and every dollar of wages paid to those men passes through the hands of a paymaster. He has the list of their earnings and knows what their income is. Those men go down into the mines at seven o'clock in the morning and do not come up until late in the afternoon and probably they would not have time to go before the registrar and make personal application to be put on the list. Supposing they said to their paymaster: You know our qualifications, and the law allows you to make this application for us. Go and make the application. I can see no corruption in that being done; it is only a mere matter of convenience which the statute has allowed for very many years. In Nova Scotia we

have a very vigorous and capable opposition, but I never heard any of its members demand that that law should be repealed.


Jacques Bureau: I would suggest an
amendment to the clause by inserting after the word "elections" in the twenty-fifth line the words "in the case of cities where the revision is biennial the last revised list shall be the voters' list." The object, as I was stating just now, is to facilitate voting. In Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke, St. Hyacinthe and Hull the revision is only by-annually. Therefore if an election takes place, say, in the month of July, we would have no lists whatever under the Act. This would make it just the same as our provincial law. Unless something like this is incorporated in the Bill I think we shall have confusion in our province, because large numbers of people seeing their names on the list made from the assessment rolls would not think of going near the registrar to be registered. This list, although more than one year old, could be utilized in such a case.


Hugh Guthrie: As we will have to pass the clause anyway to apply to all the other provinces, and as there is no objection to the wording' of the clause in general, I would suggest that we pass it and to-morrow confer on the proposals that have been made to see if we can arrange anything satisfactory with regard to the suggestions from Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under the Act as it
stands and as the minister understands it now, how long before election day will the lists be completed as far as they can be completed?


Hugh Guthrie: Candidates should have the unrevised list not later than nomination day. The next five days are taken up with revision. It is provided that the candidates shall get the revised list with the final corrections on the ninth day before polling day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the reason for granting an appeal to a man who lives in an incorporated town and not to a man who lives in a country district? For instance, a man who lives in North Sydney has the right of appeal to the county court judge if he is dissatisfied with the work of the registrar; but the man who is immediately beyond the town limits has no appeal at all from the action of the' registrar in the county. I cannot understand why a man who is in the municipal district if he lives beyond the city or town should not

have the same right of appeal as the other man.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a reason founded very largely in convenience. In Saskatchewan, where the system has been tried and found very satisfactory and where the ridings are very large, it is impossible within any reasonable time to provide machinery to permit the hearing of appeals between the time the lists are made and the election. That is the foundation of the difference between the procedure for the rural and the urban polls. If we had more judges, more judicial officers, and disregarded expense, perhaps we could apply the appellate system in all districts. But the argument was taken up in the Saskatchewan legislature-I get my information on this point from the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder)-and it was well discussed there. But the actual experience is what we base our judgment on; it has worked out to the satisfaction of everybody. Then, in the country districts throughout Ontario I am satisfied that as a rule each elector knows every other elector in the rural division-not absolutely, but as a rule. There are not nearly so many appeals in the country; there are not such difficult points to decide. A man who has been excluded can completely assert his right on polling day. But the making of a distinction was found an inconvenience and an expense, as I understand my colleague the Minister of Immigration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not leave it optional with the man to appeal if he wants to? If persons in rural districts which are close to cities and towns want to have that right, why should it not be given them? Of course, a man living twentydive or thirty miles away might not wish to do this, and the only thing to do is swear him. But if a man chooses to appeal, that is his own look-out. 'If it is difficult; if it is expensive, he need not do it, but if he is willing to go to the trouble of appearing before a judge, why not give him the privilege of doing so?


Hugh Guthrie: I see a great number of difficulties in imposing territorial limitations. I see the difliculty of complexity. We have tried to have one system for the rural and. one for the urban division, and to make for greater certainty we are going to put in an amendment that the Chief Electoral Officer shall at the outset decide what is an urban division and what is a rural division and what parts thereof are

such. Then, there is a simple system for the one and a simple system for the other. If you make a dual system for the rural division I do not see where you are going to get any finality. The judge who hears the rural appeals would have to prepare a special list of those appeals. The urban lists are printed at printing offices but the rural lists are not printed, so that the matter might not be concluded before election day. It might be a convenience to people living near a judge to have the advantage of the dual system, but on the whole I think that it cannot work any inconvenience or any injustice to have the provision as it is set forth in the present section.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps the point has
already been discussed, but I make the suggestion in consequence of what my hon. friend has said; what directions are to be given to the Chief Electoral Officer by which he is to be guided in determining what is urban and what is not?


Hugh Guthrie: Just the interpretation
of the section of the Act. Then, under another section he is the absolute judge. I assume that he will communicate with the Provincial Governments and have the latest returns; he will find out from the Governments what are the incorporated towns, cities and villages in the various provinces. Hie will also have if he wishes to avail himself of them, the latest census returns-because we have annual returns in Ontario made up from the assessment rolls. He is at liberty to form his judgment on any data, he sees fit. T have no doubt that his first duty will be to gather together that information and decide, and his discretion is absolute. A place which has a thousand people and is incorporated as a city, town or village is an urban division. But these conditions must both exist-the numbei of people and the incorporation.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause carry?


Jacques Bureau: No. If it is carried, and we want to introduce amendments, we shall have to go back to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not insist upon it, if it is a bona fide effort we are making.


Jacques Bureau: This clause embraces ten pages of printing.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not mean the
schedules. We must understand this. I do not propose to consider the amendment of the clause as a general principle for the
Dominion of Canada; what we are discussing is the amendment in so far as it pertains to Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As I have suggested, we must have the clause, no matter what we specially provide for these four places, because there are five other provinces in respect of which the clause must operate.


Jacques Bureau: My grievance is the biennial revision.


Hugh Guthrie: My suggestion was that the clause without the schedules be allowed to carry.


Jacques Bureau: My (amendment would come in the body of the clause.


Hugh Guthrie: Not necessarily.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, yes.


Hugh Guthrie: You could put it in the schedule; you can amend the schedule just as much as the clause. However, I am not going to insist on the point. I wanted to make some progress, that is all.


Jacques Bureau: We have made a lot of progress. That clause will go through in five minutes next time.


Hugh Guthrie: Well,' we have your undertaking to that effect; why not do it now?


Jacques Bureau: I am not an undertaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is impossible to carry the clause without carrying it all, and the clause includes the schedules.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood not.


Georges Henri Boivin: The clause does not include the schedule unless the schedule contains an agreement ratified by the clause. If the clause is carried, the next item of business before the committee will be the consideration of the schedules to clause 32.


Jacques Bureau: If we desire to propose amendments to the clause after it has been .adopted we shall have to obtain unanimous consent to open it up again.


Georges Henri Boivin: The member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is quite right in that. If any change is to be made in the clause the clause will have to be reconsidered.


Jacques Bureau: My amendment comes in the clause. There is no place to work it into the schedule. Let it stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is for the committee to decide. Is the committee ready for the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two amendments are suggested. It may be that at a conference we can reach an understanding. If we can reach an understanding to-morrow, as to-night seems to be probable, we will not bring in these amendments. But if we cannot, we want to bring in the amendments and vote on them.


Hugh Guthrie: My fear is that our labour is all going to be in vain. It happens that on Friday we cannot take up consideration of this Bill. Monday will be well taken up, I understand, with a special order, and on Tuesday there is the Budget. I assume that the Budget will continue until it is finished; so I am sure we shall have forgotten most of the Franchise Act in the interval.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no; we shall have our amendments written down and agreed upon and it will be all right.


Hugh Guthrie: On that understanding I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Friday, May 14, 1920.